MASTER 
NEGATIVE 
NO. 92-851125-4 





MICROFILMED 1993 
COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES/NEW YORK 


as part of the | : 
”Foundations of Western Civilization Preservation Project” 


Funded by the 
NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR THE HUMANITIES 


_ Reproductions may not be made without permission from 
Columbia University Library 





COPYRIGHT STATEMENT 


The copyright law of the United States - Title 17, United 
States Code - concerns the making of photocopies or 
other reproductions of copyrighted material. 


Under certain conditions specified in the law, libraries and 
archives are authorized to furnish a photocopy or other 
reproduction. One of these specified conditions is that the 
photocopy or other reproduction is not to be "used for any 
purpose other than private study, scholarship, or 
research." If a user makes a request for, or later uses, a 
photocopy or reproduction for purposes in excess of "fair 
use, that user may be liable for copyright infringement. 


This institution reserves the right to refuse to accept a 
copy order if, in its judgement, fulfillment of the order 
would involve violation of the copyright law. 





AUTHOR: 


EBELING, HERMAN 
LOUIS 


TITLE: 


STUDY IN THE SOURCES 


OF THE MESSENIACA 


PLACE: 


BALTIMORE 


DATE: 


1892 





COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES 
PRESERVATION DEPARTMENT 





BIBLIOGRAPHIC MICROFORM TARGET 


Master Negative # 


σὴ - Φι] 8 -ὦ 








Restrictions on Use: 


FILM SIZE: 
IMAGE PLACEMENT: IA 
DATE FILMED: 2-2 


Original Material as Filmed - Existing Bibliographic Record 


Ebeling, Herman Louis, 1857- 


A study in the sources of the Messeniaca of Pausanias 


“οὐ by Herman Louis Ebeling ... Baltimore, J. Murphy & 
-co., 1892. ees 


Sete ~ naw os Φαλοδοάν yidliandie εἷς 





3 p. 1, 5-78 p. 23™. 


Thesis (PH. p.)—Johns Hopkins university, 1889, 
Bibliography: p. 78. 




















15 mm 


12. AS) oe 


ED 


25 


22 
2.0 


τό 


9 
| 
| 

ll 


nd Image Management 


Suite 1100 





80 
90 
ΞΞΞΞ- 
0 
ἴω [τ 
νι 


56 3.2 














Association for Information a 











Silver Spring, Maryland 20910 
301/587-8202 
1: 
iss 
ase 
ba 


1100 Wayne Avenue, 


125 





BY APPLIED IMAGE, INC. 





MANUFACTURED TO AIIM STANDARDS 


2 


1 


Centimeter 





Sele Ak 


yA! 





eel ON 


‘ mS / 








NU, 


4 


Hopkins pe 


GIVEN BY 


Columbia College 
in the Gity of Lew York 


AMS 


\ 


co 
Τῆς 


Ry 





“4 























A STUDY 


IN THE 


SOURCES OF THE MESSENIACA 
OF PAUSANIAS. 


A DISSERTATION 


PRESENTED TO THE BOARD OF UNIVERSITY STUDIES OF 
THE JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY FOR THE 
DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY. 


BY 


HERMAN LOUIS EBELING, Pu. D., 
. Professor of Greek in Miami University, Oxford, Ohio. 





BALTIMORE: 


JOHN MURPHY ἃ CO. 
1892. 





MY DEAR PARENTS. 


i" 


4695 OY do Yes“). 8681. NYE 2 





a ee ee eee ees ee SSS See we eee ee 








ERRATA. 


A few obvious misprints are passed without notice. 


Pages 51, 53, 56, 58, 78 —for Conat read Couat. 
Page 75,1. 1,4, and 13 — “ Comon “Conon. 
“ 13,1. 3 from bottom— “proof of. 
“ Shae ΚΝ er ee * py he, 
ιν . “ p. 25 . 
“ΜΕΥ ὰ * <2 ἂν 15. 
Oa ae . “ that part of the first war read that part the first war. 
* Ga he ce “ec. VII, ὃ, end read p. 64. 
ἥκει κα “ Althis “  Atthis. 
ΜΙ δ * 5. 35 ae 
δε εἰ “ γεύεσθαι ¢ ενέσθαι 
“με ἢ Ι divide ἐκδοθέν--τος 
7 St " — “ μετεπέμ-ποντο 
Ἢ ἐπ A bottom— “ <; 
pater > 2 Mee “ — %“ Σπαρ-τιατῶν 








CONTENTS. 





PREFACE, - oe, ah 
A SKETCH oF MEssENIAN History, he a 
CHRONOLOGICAL TABLE, - - . : x : 
ΝΜ Ge) nat ht oe Law ιν jes 


II. Pavsantas’ INTRODUCTION TAKEN FROM MyYRon, - - 


a. Comparison between Introduction and Account of First War, 
ὃ. Teleclus, SN oh =! | he ei ae ae as 
Si OS τ αὶ τ A μι 
d. Polychares, - - - - - . : " ‘ 4 


III. Pavsanras’ ΞΚΈΤΟΗ oF THE CLOSE OF THE First Wark, - - 


IV, a. Tue Sources ror CHaprers XIV-XVII ΟἸΉΡΕ THAN Myron, 


6. Ephorus and Tyrtaeus, a” RR Nal a ἢ 
6. Sosibius, - - - - = . ee a ι ᾿ 
d. Reasons why Ephorus’ History not used more Extensively, 
“ΠΝ πὰ NT ak tee oe Page dS ee lig Ss 


V. Myron THE CHIEF SOURCE FOR CHAPTERS XIV-XVII2°, 


a. Myron used Tradition pertaining to the Second War, 

6. Certain parts dealing with Aristomenes from Myron, 

c. The Allies, - - - - : ps " : " 

d. Τγτίδουθ, - ; - - - - " . ‘ ᾿ 


REVIEW, - - - - - - " ᾿ " vs orc 


VI. CONSIDERATION OF PossIBLE SOURCES FOR THE ACCOUNT OF THE 
RESTORATION, - - - - . - - - - 45-51 


a. It was not constructed by Pausanias from Fragments, - - - 46 

6. The Story of the Restoration joined to an Account of the Previous 
ΠΝ, eet ὦ τἀ Tp une aye estat liebe e | 

6. Rhianus, - - - - - - - - - - 


VII. Myron’s History PROBABLY INCLUDED AN ACCOUNT OF 
RESTORATION, ae eee ee re 


a. Various Reasons Assigned to Prove Myron’s Authorship, 
6. The Part Played by Destiny Points to Myron, - - 
6. Rhianus and Myron, - oor A le a. 


VIII, a. Toe Tump Messenian Wark, - - - | «. 
ἀπ, τ τὖ ee ey eg 
CAM Ree ee ἡμὴ} 


Concuusion, “νι av og 2 





PREFACE. 


It has long been recognized that the style of Pausanias’ Messe- 
naca is an improvement on that of the other books of his Deseriptio 
Graeciae, and very justly this improvement has been referred to 
the sources he had used. 

Kohlmann, Quaestiones Messeniacae, 1866, has shown that these 
Sources were to a large extent Myron of Priene, a rhetorician, and 
the epic poet Rhianus of Bene. Hoping to prove Pausanias’ 
dependence upon Rhianus more in detail, I undertook to examine 
the Messeniaca with a view to poetic style. I compared with it 
the extant epigrams of Rhianus, but without success. A search for 
poetical words revealed one here and there, but these may be found 
in the other books as well. Moreover, that part of the fourth book 
which has been attributed to Myron is not without poetical color, 
owing no doubt somewhat to the sources which Myron himself had 
used. Myron also came in for a share of my attention. Kohlmann 
among other things cited a number of passages containing moral re- 
flections, which he referred to the rhetorician as their source. But 
on further reading in Pausanias, moral reflections appeared very 
frequently in the other books, so that they offered no test of 
authorship. 

Hoping still to throw some light on the style of the fourth book, 
which would enable me to mark off the different parts of it, I 
examined the style of Pausanias more generally. This only proved 
to me that Pausanias has a style of his own, such as it is, which 
seems to be characterized nowhere so well as in Gurlitt, Uber Pau- 
sanias, 1890, p. 15 sqq., This view is supported by the fact that 
the multitude and variety of the sources which Pausanias used, 
made it necessary for him to resist at least a literal transfer, 


5 





Preface. 


C. Wernicke, De Pausaniae Periegetae Studiis Herodoteis (Ber- 
olini, 1884), has shown in parallel columns how Pausanias adopted 
matter from Herodotus. One may say of these passages that with- 
out exception they have been changed in diction and in structure, 
and Pausanias’ desire to assimilate the material to his style can be 
geen most markedly in those passages where the borrowing is close. 
The same may be said on comparing Pausanias VIII, 49-51, with 
Plutarch’s Philopoemen (see Nissen, Kritische Untersuchungen ib. 
die Quellen des Livius, p. 287 sqq., Berlin, 1863). Besides Pausa- 
nias shows considerable skill in extracting, condensing and com- 
bining his material, to which he seems ever ready to make some 
slight additions from memory. A certain amount of independence 
may also be seen in the alterations which he makes. 

This independence, then, and the mosaic-like character of his 
work explains the difficulty of separating one part from the other 
by detecting differences of style. I therefore determined to make 
an attempt at defining the limits of the sources of the Messeniaca 
from internal evidence before continuing my study of the style. 

The result has been the following study of the sources of the 


Messeniaca, in which it has been attempted to prove that Pausanias 
made a larger use of Myron’s work than is generally supposed. 


A SKETCH OF MESSENIAN HISTORY. 





As it might assist the reader in understanding the arguments of 
the following discussion, I give below a short sketch of Messenian 
history according to Pausanias, to which I append a chronological 
table, giving some dates of important events in this history, as well 
as of those ancient writers whose testimony we have to consider. 

Long before the siege of Troy Polycaon came to the unoccupied 
land that lay west of the Taygetus range of mountains and took 
possession of it. From his wife’s name, Messene, the land was 
called Messenia. The government under Polycaon and his succes- 
sors was on the whole peaceful ; cities were founded and religious 
institutions established. At the return of the Heraclidae the Dorian 
Cresphontes drew lots for this fertile country with the sons of 
Aristodemus, and through an understanding with Temenus, king 
of Argos, to whom the lot drawing had been entrusted, Cresphontes 
had Messenia assigned to himself. This brought Messenia under 
Dorian rule, and although in an uprising Cresphontes was killed, 
his son Aepytus was placed on the throne by the help of the Arca- 
dian king Cypselus and the above mentioned sons of Aristodemus, 
and so the family of Cresphontes ruled Messenia for many years 
until the race became extinct with the death of Euphaes, who was 
killed in the first Messenian war. It was during the reign of 
Phintas that the first occasion arose which caused a feeling of 
enmity between the Lacedaemonians and Messenians. They had 
been in the habit of worshipping together in the temple of Artemis 
Limnas, which was situated on the border of Messenia and Lace- 
daemonia. At one of+such religious festivals a disturbance arose 
between the Messenians and Spartans, during which the Spartan 
king Teleclus was killed. Later ona difficulty arose between a 

7 





8 A Sketch of Messenian History. 


Messenian named Polychares and a Spartan named Euaephnus. 
All attempts to smooth the matter over proved unavailing, and the 
war broke out by the Spartans’ seizing the Messenian town Ampheia 
gia a lasted twenty years, and was conducted bravely by the 
Messenians against great odds ; at first under the leadership of their 
king Euphaes, and then under that of Aristodemus, who was elected 
in spite of the protests of the priests. For Aristodemus, in his 
eagerness to serve his country, had attempted in obedience to the 
oracle, to sacrifice his daughter, but owing to the opposition he 
met with from the lover of the maiden, had in a fit of passion slain 
her with his own hand. Shortly before this tragedy the Messe- 
nians had retreated to the mountain fortress [thome, where they 
held out against the attacks of the Spartans for many years, but 
finally a succession of unfavorable oracles and omens threw them 
and their leader into despair. Aristodemus committed suicide on 
the grave of his daughter, and five months later, at the end of the 
twentieth year, Ithome was surrendered. Some of the Messenians 
went into exile, but the majority remained and were sorely oppressed 
by Spartan rule. Thirty-nine years after the surrender of Ithome 
the Messenians tried to throw off the Spartan yoke. They were 
now led by Aristomenes, who performed many wonderful deeds of 
bravery, and struck terror into the hearts of the Spartans. The 
oracle advised them to ask the Athenians for a counsellor, who sent 
them the lame school-master Tyrtaeus. He, however, succeeded in 
reviving the courage of the Lacedaemonians with his war-songs. 
At the battle of the Great Trench the Messenians suffered an over- 
whelming defeat owing to the treachery of the Arcadian king 
Aristocrates, who unexpectedly withdrew his troops from the field 
of battle. The Messenians now retreated to the mountain Eira, 
where they held out against a siege for eleven years, during which 
time Aristomenes made repeated inroads upon Spartan territory 
with a band of trusty followers. Finally, 668 B. C., the Messe- 
nians were forced to capitulate, and sought refuge with their Arca- 
dian neighbors. The treachery of the Arcadian king Aristocrates 
was discovered, and he was put to death. Most of the Messenians 
set sail for Sicily, where they had been called by Anaxilas, king of 
Rhegium. They got possession of the town Zancle and changed its 


A Sketch of Messenian History. 9 


name to Messene. Aristomenes ended his days on the island of 
Rhodes, where he had accompanied one of his daughters, who had 
married the king of Ialysus, a town on this island. ee 

The third Messenian war (464 B.C.) was occasioned by an 
earthquake, which proved so disastrous to the Spartans that those 
of the Helots who were descended from the Messenians thought 
an opportunity had arrived to gain their liberty. They entrenched 
themselves on Mt. Ithome, and succeeded in resisting all attacks 
that were made upon them for a number of years. Finally, how- 
ever, they were forced to capitulate, whereupon the Athenians turned 
over to them the city Naupactus to inhabit. While here they cap- 
tured a town, Oeniadae, in Acarnania, which was hostile to the 
Athenians, but held it only for one year. 

After the battle of Aegospotami, 405 B. C., they were driven out 
of Naupactus by the Spartans. Some of them went to their coun- 
trymen in Sicily and to Rhegium, but most of them set sail for 
Libya under the leadership of Comon, and settled in Eusperitae. 

Thirty-five years later they were recalled by Epaminondas, who 
organized a new Messenian state 370 B. OC. Comon, who had been 
apprised beforehand by a dream of their return to Greece, led 
them back. 

Great preparations were now made for building on Mt. Ithome 
a town which was to be called Messene. When everything was in 
readiness all present offered sacrifices to their respective gods, and 
thereupon, to the accompaniment of flutes, they began the construc- 
tion of the walls of the new city. 

Pausanias continues with an account of the later history of the 
Messenians down to the year 183 B. C., but as this part has little 
to do with our subject, it has been omitted. 

It may perhaps not be superfluous to warn the reader against 
confusing Aristodemus with Aristomenes, 

Aristodemus was the king of the Messenians in the jirst war. 

Aristomenes was the national hero of the Messenians, who per- 
formed heroic deeds in the second war. 








CHRONOLOGICAL TABLE OF MESSENIAN HISTORY. 


B. C. 
1104. Cresphontes. 


826. Teleclus. 

743. First Messenian War. 

685. Second Messenian War. 

464. Third Messenian War. 

455. Messenians settle in Naupactus. 
405. Messenians driven from Naupactus. 
370. Messenia restored by Epaminondas. 





CHRONOLOGICAL TABLE OF THE SOURCES. 


B. C. 
685. Tyrtaeus. 
445. Herodotus. 
419. Thucydides. 
396 (446-355). Xenophon. 
369. Isocrates. 
338. Ephorus. 
251 (about). Sosibius. 
222. Rhianus. 
200. (?) Myron of Priene. 
146. Polybius. 
1st Cent. Diodorus Siculus. 
--- Strabo. : 
-- Trogus Pompeius (Epitome of his History by 
Justinus, 400 A. D. (?) 


“.». 
150. Pausanias. 


== Polyaenus. 
200. Clemens Alexandrinus. 
300. Eusebius Caesariensis. 
400. (?) Justinus. 


Note.—References are made to pages of thesis or to chapters. 
10 


A STUDY IN THE SOURCES OF THE MESSENIACA 
OF PAUSANIAS. 





I. Intropvuctrion. 


Sober history knows but little in reference to the Messenian wars. 
Busolt, Grriech. Gesch., I, 134, considers the verses of Tyrtaeus to 
be nearly our only reliable source of information concerning them. 
‘They were probably the only source which the ancients themselves 
possessed, whose collection of Tyrtaean verses containing historical 
information was, as O. Miiller, Dorier, 1844, p. 141, remarked, 
hardly larger than that which we have at the present day. 


But although there was little reliable information of these early 
wars handed down, yet there was an abundance of tradition cher- 
ished by the Messenians, which clustered chiefly about the deeds of 
Aristomenes, who was looked upon as the national hero. Isocrates, 
Archidamus, draws on Mythology to establish the claim of the 
Spartans to Messenia, and speaks also of oracles that had gone out 
from Delphi in answer to the inquiries sent there both by the Mes- 
senians and Lacedaemonians. When the Messenians were restored 
to their country by Epaminondas, 370 B. C., it was but natural 
that the interest in these early events should be largely increased, 
and in consequence of this several writers undertook to work up 
the existing material into a literary form. Of the Messeniaca by 
4Eschylus of Alexandria mentioned by Athenaeus, 13, 599, e, 
nothing further is known. But from Pausanias we know that 
Rhianus of Bene seized upon this material to write an epic poem 
in imitation of Homer's Iliad, in which Aristomenes was the cen- 
tral figure; also that Myron, using to a large extent the same 
material, wrote a history of the Messenians in prose, in which other 
heroes played prominent roles along with Aristomenes. 


11 





12 A Study in the Sources of 


The following discussion deals chiefly with Myron’s history, 
therefore a characterization of his work, as far as known, is neces- 
sary. Unfortunately there are no fragments of his work extant, 
if we except two short passages in Athenaeus, and we have to rely 
chiefly on the account of the first Messenian war in Pausanias for 
our information. 

There is no doubt that Myron served Pausanias as a source for 
writing the history of the first Messenian war. Pausanias’ own 
words in c. 6, besides Kohlmann’s investigation alluded to above, 
prove this. And, as it is also highly probable that Myron was the 
only source for this part of the Messeniaca, I shall proceed in my 
investigation on the assumption that all of the first Messenian war 
reflects Myron’s manner of treatment, although it seems that, as 
usual, Pausanias manipulated his material and put it in his own 
language. 

We see in the Myron of Pausanias a rhetorician. Boeckh, Opusce., 
IV, 211, 4, and C. Miller, Fragm. Hist. Gr., IV, 461, have iden- 
tified him with the rhetorician of that name mentioned by Rutilius 
Lupus, De figg. sentent., I, 20; ΤΙ, 1; and Kohlmann has sufficiently 
pointed out the rhetorical character of the account of the first Mes- 
senian war in Pausanias to support this view. An examination of 
the account of the first war also shows that Myron was more bent 
on furbishing up tradition than on writing history, and so Kohl- 
mann justly calls him seriptor fabularum magis, quam historiarum. 
Busolt (Neue Jahrb. f. Phil., 1883, p. 814), has thrown considerable 
light on the manner in which Myron composed his history. He 
says: “Der Rahmen fir die Geschichte des ersten messenischen 
Krieges ist also aus Thukydides und Xenophon zusammengeflickt. 
Zur Fiillung desselben wurden allerlei Details, Fabeln und Wun- 
dergeschichten verwendet, die der Gewahrsmann des Pausanias 
[Myron] nach Erzihlung der Messenier und dem Epos compo- 
nierte.” This explains the air of unreality in so many passages of 
Pausanias’ Messeniaca, and in this light we are able to appreciate 
the criticism that Pausanias himself, c. 6, passed on Myron: Μύρωνα 
δὲ ἐπί τε ἄλλοις καταμαθεῖν ἔστιν οὐ προορώμενον εἴ ψενδῆ τε καὶ 
οὐ πιθανὰ δόξει λέγειν, καὶ οὐχ ἥκιστα ἐν τῇδε τῇ Μεσσηνίᾳ 


συγγραφῇ. 


The Messeniaca of Pausanias. 18 
A 

But we should not censure Myron for writing a fictitious account 
of the Messenian wars; for, as history has failed us here, we have 
thus had preserved for us an interesting though imaginary picture - 
of these wars. It is true the partisan spirit displayed is very 
marked, yet we are very willing to have our sympathies aroused 
for the Messenians, who had to suffer so severe a punishment. 

That Myron felt a bitterness for the Spartans can be seen from 
Athenaeus, 14, 657,d: ὅτε δὲ τοῖς Εἵλωσι ὑβριστικῶς πάνυ 
ἐχρῶντο Λακεδαιμόνιοι καὶ Μύρων ὁ Πριηνεὺς ἱστορεῖ ἐν δευτέρῳ 
Μεσσηνιακῶν γράφων οὕτως ‘trois δ᾽ Εἵλωσι πᾶν ὑβριστικὸν ἔργον 
ἐπιτάττουσι προς πᾶσαν ἄγον ἀτιμίαν κ. τ. Δ. 

We have accordingly the following important characteristics of 
Myron’s style: animosity displayed towards the Spartans ; elements 
of a rhetorical style shown, for instance, in the frequent speeches ; 
fictitious descriptions of battles ; frequent anachronisms ; and lastly 
imitations of passages in Thucydides, in Xenophon, and to some 
extent, I think, in Herodotus. 


I shall undertake to prove, in the first place, that Pausanias is 
indebted to Myron for the whole of his introduction, aside from 
short paragraphs added by Pausanias, and for the sketch of the 
close of the first war, in addition to the history of the first war 
down to the death of Aristodemus, which is generally conceded to 
Myron. 

On both of these positions the words of Pausanias in c. 6, which 
seem to deal with the limits of Myron’s history, have an important 
bearing. Although it will be shown below that Pausanias could 
not have meant these words to be taken literally, yet they are stated 
so positively that the reader is led to suppose that Myron failed to 
write an introduction to his history, and that he brought the same 
to a close with the death of Aristodemus, five months before the end 
of the war. In respect to the latter point scholars have interpreted 
this passage in the above literal manner, although in regard to the 
former they grant that Myron may have written an introduction. 
Yet the proof this which. Immerwahr, Lakonika, 140, finds in the 
assumption that Myron was also used by Diodorus as a source, does 
not seem to rest on a sure foundation (see IT, c.) ; neither is it likely 








14 A Study in the Sources of 


that his view that the introduction in Pausanias was compiled from 
different sources, is correct. 


II. Pavsantas’ INTRODUCTION TAKEN FROM ΜΎΒΟΝ, 


a). Comparison between Introduction and Account of First War. 


An examination of Pausanias’ introduction to the Messenian wars 
in the light of Myron’s characteristics of style, as given above, 
and a comparison of this introduction with the account of the first 
war down to the death of Aristodemus (i. ¢., c. 5, 9 to ο. 13. 5), will 
make it probable that Pausanias was indebted to Myron for the 
whole of his introduction. 

It may be remarked at the outset that it seems incredible that 
Myron’s history, a prose work which seemed to take in all the cir- 
cumstances that pertained to the first war, should have omitted to 
write an introduction, but should have commenced with the taking 
of Ampheia (c. 6). That the contrary is true may be seen in the 
first place by comparing Pausanias’ introduction with the account 
which Ephorus gave of the causes that led to the Messenian wars. 
Strabo, 279: “Eqopos δ᾽ οὕτω λέγει τερὶ τῆς κτίσεως ἐπολέμουν 
Λακεδαιμόνιοι Μεσσηνίοις ἀποκτείνασι τὸν βασιλέα Τήλεκλον εἰς 
Μεσσήνην ἀφικόμενον ἐπὶ θυσίαν, ὀμόσαντες μὴ πρότερον ἐπανήξειν 
οἴκαδε πρὶν ἢ Μεσσήνην ἀνελεῖν ἢ πάντας ἀποθανεῖν. The sequel 
to this oath is the story about the Partheniae (Strabo, 1. ¢.), which 
is not in Pausanias. According to Ephorus, we notice, the killing 
of Teleclus was the immediate cause of the war, and the Spartans 
swear in consequence to destroy Messene (Μεσσήνην ἀνελεῖν). 

We find the same in Diod., XV, 66: μετὰ δέ ταῦτα Τηλέκλου 
τοῦ βασιλέως τῶν Λακεδαιμονίων ἀποθανόντος ἐν ἀγῶνι κατεπολε- 
μήθησαν ὑπὸ Λακεδαιμονίων οἱ Μεσσήνιοι " τοῦτον δέ τὸν πόλεμον 
εἰκοσαετῆ φασι γενέσθαι, κατομοσαμένων τῶν Λακεδαιμονίων μὴ 
ἀνακάμψειν εἰς τὴν Σπάρτην, ἐὰν μὴ Μεσσήνην ἕλωσι; and in 
Justinus, III, 4: His igitur moribus ita brevi civitas convaluit, ut, 
cum Messeniis, propter stupratas virgines suas in solemni Messeni- 
orum sacrificio (the occasion on which Teleclus was killed; cf. Paus., 
c. 2), bellum intalissent, gravissima se execratione obstrinzerint, non 
prius quam Messenam expugnassent, reversuros. 





The Messeniaca of Pausanias. 15 


All of the above is supposed to go back to Ephorus, except that 
Busolt does not believe that Ephorus knew anything about the 


violation of the maidens, of which Justinus speaks. See Enmann, 


Untersuch. Pomp. Trog., p. 125, and Busolt, Griech. Gesch., I, p. 
153, 1. We find all of the above in Pausanias, but with some 
changes and many additions, such as we might expect to find in 
such an historical romance as we know Myron’s Messeniaca to 
have been. 

The oath according to Ephorus is strictly adhered to; not so in 
Pausanias (cc. 7, 7; 5, 8), for although Myron, his source, had 
recorded the oath, yet he evidently found it inconvenient to handle 
the narrative of the Messenian war, with the Spartans constantly 
on the scene. 

Again we find that whereas, according to Ephorus the Spartans 
wish to punish the Messenians for killing Teleclus, in Pausanias 
this affair is allowed to pass unnoticed (c. 4, 3), and not until a 
generation later does the affair with Polychares take place, which 
becomes the immediate cause of the war. This permits a much 
longer discussion of the causes, and so helps to put the Spartans in 
a much worse light, which is in perfect accord with Myron’s atti- 
tude towards them. 

The Spartans’ aim is, according to Strabo, 279: Μεσσήνην ἀνε- 
λεῖν ; according to Diod., XV, 76: μὴ ἀνακάμψειν εἰς τὴν 
Σπάρτην, ἐὰν μὴ Μεσσήνην ἕλωσι; according to Just., III, 4: 
non prius quam Messenam expugnassent, reversuros. In Pausanias, 
c. 5, 8, on the other hand, we read this rhetorical statement : 
προομνύουσιν ὅρκον μήτε τοῦ πολέμου μῆκος, ἢν μὴ δι᾽ ὀλίγου 
κριθῇ, μήτε τὰς συμφοράς, εἰ μεγάλαι πολεμοῦσι γένοιντο, ἀπο- 
τρέψειν σφᾶς πρὶν ἢ κτήσαιντο χώραν τὴν Μεσσηνίαν δοριάλωτον " 
ταῦτα προομόσαντες ἔξοδον νύκτωρ ἐποιοῦντο ἐπὶ "Αμφειαν. Now 
the charge, that the Spartans wanted the Messenian land, is a con- 
trolling idea in the discussion of the causes of the war, occurring 
also in c. 4, 3, and ¢. 5, 3, the latter passage being a fierce outburst 
against the Spartan greed of gain. And as it is also found in the 
part which Pausanias, c. 6, expressly says was written by Myron, 
namely in cc. 7, 9; 7,10; 8, 2, being there expressed in the speeches 
respectively of Theopompus, Euphaes and in the reproaches uttered 





16 A Study in the Sources of 


by the Messenians on the battlefield, the close connection between 
the introduction and the account of the first war is manifest. 

Again a correspondence can be seen between these two parts, in 
the charge brought against the Spartans that they were the ageres- 
sors. As far back in the introduction as c. 4, 3, we read that the 
Spartans had not demanded satisfaction for the killing of Teleclus 
for the following reason: συνειδότας ὡς ἄρξαιεν ἀδικίας, and again 
(c. 4, 4), καὶ ἤρξαν of Λακεδαιμόνιοι πολέμου. This same accusa- 
tion is made in Myron’s part, where we read (c. 6, 6) that Euphaes 
encouraged the Messenians after the capture of the Ampheia with 
the words καὶ τὸ εὐμενέστερον ἔσεσθαι παρὰ τῶν θεῶν ἀμύνουσι 
τῇ οἰκείᾳ καὶ οὐκ ἀδικίας ἄρχουσιν. 

We read in the account of the war, c. 8, 2, that the Messenians 
consider the aggression of the Spartans all the greater as they were 
both of the same race, as follows: of δὲ ἐκείνους τῷ TE ἐγχειρήματι 
ἀνοσίους, ἐπεὶ πλεονεξίας ἕνεκα καὶ ἐπὶ ἄνδρας συγγενεῖς ἐπίασι, 
κ- τ λ. A similar charge is brought in the introduction, ο. ὅ, 3: 
Κροίσῳ te αὐτοῖς δῶρα ἀτοστέιλαντι γενέσθαι φίλους βαρβάρῳ 
πρώτους, ἀφ᾽ οὗ γε τούς τε ἄλλους τοὺς ἐν τῇ ᾿Ασίᾳ κατεδουλώ- 
σατο Ἕλληνας καὶ ὅσοι Δωριεῖς ἐν τῇ Καρικῇ κατοικοῦσιν ἠπείρῳ. 

That Myron was guilty of anachronisms has been mentioned 
above. So we find in the account of the war c. 12,2: τοῖς βασι- 
λεῦσι καὶ τοῖς ἐφόροις, and likewise in the introduction, ο. 4, 8: 
φοιτῶν ἐς τὴν Λακεδαίμονα τοῖς ρασιλεῦσιν ἦν καὶ τοῖς ἐφόροις δι᾽ 
ὄχλου ; cf. also introduction, c. 5,4. These are the only passages 
where Ephors are mentioned in the account of the first two Mes- 
senian wars. Busolt, I, 147, 2, says: Aus Diod., VIII, 7, und 
Paus., IV, 4, 5 (wahrscheinlich nach Myron von Priene), folgt 
natirlich nicht, dass schon beim Ausbruche des ersten messenischen 
Krieges das Ephorat bestand. Id., I, 148. Noch zur Zeit des 
zweiten messenischen Krieges lag, wie aus einem Tyrtaios-Fragment 
erhellt, die Leitung des Staates wesentlich in den Handen des 
Konigs und der Gerusia. (Cf. also id., I, 149, 4.) 

A correspondence between the introduction and the account of 
the first war may also be seen in the references made to the well 
known fraud of Cresphontes, which was not only told in its proper 
connection in the recital of the early history in ο. 3, 3-6, but was 
also brought forward as one of the causes of the war in c. 5, 1, as 





The Messeniaca of Pausanias. 17 


follows: Λακεδαιμόνιοι μὲν δὴ Πολυχάρους τε ἕνεκα οὐκ ἐκδοθέ. 
ντος σφίσι, καὶ διὰ τὸν Τηλέκλου φόνον, καὶ πρότερον ἔτι ὑπόπτως 
ἔχοντες διὰ τὸ Κρεσφόντου κακούργημα ἐς τὸν κλῆρον, πολεμῆσαι 
λέγουσιν. Reference is clearly made to this in the account of the 
war in the oracle quoted, c. 12,1: ᾿Αλλ᾽ ἀπάτη μὲν ἔχει γαῖαν 
Μεσσηνίδα λαός, K.T. Xr. 

Let us now examine in succession the stories told in the intro- 
duction about Teleclus and Polychares, in each of which we shall 
find clear indications of Myron’s style. A partisan spirit is quite 
manifest. In the case of Teleclus, where there are two versions, 
the Messenian one comes last, and is the longer ; likewise in the 
summing up of the causes after the Polychares story (ὁ. 5), the 
Spartan view is simply stated in not quite four lines, whereupon 
follows a fierce attack, made from the Messenian standpoint, occu- 
pying fully a page. That Pausanias is following lis source here is 
evident (cf. especially c. 5, 5). Examine also ITI, 3,1; IV, 4,1; 
4,3; 5, 3, where he makes a show of impartiality. 


b). Teleclus. 


Of the two versions that are given of the Teleclus affair, the 
Spartan one, as Pausanias tells it (c. 4, 2), may be had by combining 
Strabo, 279, with 362 and 257, which would include the same 
description of the temple of Artemis Limnas as Pausanias gives in 
c. 4, 2, and III, 2, 5. At the same time Pausanias’ work as a 
compiler can be seen in the genealogy of Teleclus, which he doubt- 
less took from Sosibius (cf. Immerwahr, op. cit., 7sqq.) However 
that may be, Pausanias is evidently following Myron in the Mes- 
senian version. In fact it does not seem to be altogether unlikely 
that Myron himself mentioned the Spartan version, and then con- 
tinued with what he represented as the true story. 

The Messenian versfon bears a striking resemblance to the story 
told in Hdt., v. 20, so that when we consider that Myron wrote a 
fictitious account, getting his suggestions from scraps of history, it 
seems possible that he followed Herodotus in composing this story. 
A comparison of the two stories will show the likelihood of this 


supposition : 








18 A Study in 


Paus., c. 4,3: Μεσσήνιοι δέ 
τοῖς ἐλθοῦσι σφῶν ἐς τὸ ἱερὸν 
πρωτεύουσιν ἐν Μεσσήνῃ κατὰ 
ἀξίωμα, τούτοις φασὶν ἐπιβου 
λεῦσαι Τήλεκλον, αἴτιον δὲ εἶναι 
τῆς χώρας τῆς Μεσσηνίας τὴν 
ἀρετήν, ἐπιβουλεύοντα δὲ ἐπιλέ- 
Fa. Σπαρτιατῶν, ὁπόσοι πω 
γένεια οὐκ εἶχον, τούτους δὲ 
ἐσθῆτι καὶ κόσμῳ τῷ λοιπῷ 


the Sources of 


Hdt., V., 17: Μεγάβαζος δὲ 
/ > ,, > 

‘* πέμπει ἀγγέλους ἐς Maxe- 

, bd e \ 7 ἉὯἂ 
δονίην ἄνδρας ἑπτὰ Πέρσας, οἱ 
μετ᾽ αὐτὸν ἐκεῖνον ἦσαν δοκιμώ- 
τατοι ἐν τῷ στρατοπέδῳ. ἐπέ- 
μποντο δὲ *** αἰτήσοντες γῆν 
τε καὶ ὕδωρ; V, 20: αὐτὸς δὲ ὁ 
᾿Αλέξανδρος ἴσους τῇσι γυναιξὶ 
> \ Ψ A 
ἀριθμὸν ἄνδρας λειογενείους τί 
τῶν γυναικῶν ἐσθῆτι σκευάσας 





\ a Μ 
σκευάσαντα ὡς παρθένονς ἀνα- | καὶ ἐγχειρίδια δοὺς παρῆγε ἔσω 
A e \ / / e 
παυομένοις τοῖς Μεσσηνίοις ‘ οἱ δὲ, ἐπεί τέ σφεων οἱ 
? a“ 50 3 (ὃ , , > 7 ὃ 
ἐπεισαγαγεῖν, δόντα ἐγχειρίδια | Πέρσαι ψαύειν ἐπειρέοντο, διερ- 
/ 
καὶ τοὺς Μεσσηνίους ἀμυνομέ- | γάζοντο αὐτούς. 
νους τούς τε ἀγενείους veavic- 
κους καὶ αὐτὸν ἀποκτεῖναι Τή- 





λεκλον. 


6). Diodorus. 


The Polychares episode involves the question whether Diodorus 
also used Myron as a source ; for the fragments of Book VIII con- 
tain the Polychares story, and have also other matter bearing more 
or less resemblance to the account of the first war in Pausanias. 
Enmann, op. cit., 123, who has been followed by Busolt, I, 135, 
and Immerwahr, Lakonika, 140, seems to have been the first to 
assert that Myron was a source for Diod. VIII. Although this 
view would throw welcome light upon the present investigation, 
yet a closer examination makes the truth of this assertion rather 
doubtful. | 

The passage in Diod., XV, 66, reading as follows, ἔνιοι δὲ τὸν 
᾿Αριστομένην γεγονέναι φασὶ κατὰ τὸν εἰκοσαετῆ πόλεμον, has 
been thought to refer to Myron, for Pausanias, ο. 6, tells us that 
Myron had made the mistake of associating Aristomenes with the 
first war, and so the fragment in Diod., VIII, 10, which tells of a 
dispute between Aristomenes and Kleonnis, one of the Messenian 
leaders in the first Messenian war, might seem to have been taken 
from Myron, with whose history it seems to agree in style. But I 
shall show below (c. V, a) that the tradition concerning the first 





The Messeniaca of Pausanias. 19 


two Messenian wars had been frequently confused ; besides, the fol- 
lowing passages prove that such a confusion was widespread in the 
case of Aristomenes.! Plutarch, Agis, 21, says: Μεσσηνίων δὲ 
καὶ Θεόπομπον ὑπ᾽ ᾿Αριστομένους πεσεῖν λεγόντων οὔ φασι Aaxe- 
δαιμόνιοι, πληγῆναι δὲ μόνον. Two versions are implied in this 
passage, according to which Aristomenes was a contemporary of 
Theopompus, who took part in the first war. Again, in Clem. 
Alex., Protrept., ITI, 42, we read : ᾿Αριστομένης γοῦν ὁ Μεσσήνιος 
τῷ ᾿Ιθωμήτῃ Διὶ τριακοσίους ἀπέσφαξεν, τοσαύτας ὁμοῦ καὶ τοι- 
αὕτας καλλιερεῖν ὀιόμενος ἑκατόμβας ἐν οἷς καὶ Θεόπομπος ἦν ὁ 
Λακεδαιμονίων βασιλεὺς, ἱερεῖον εὐγενές. This same passage 
occurs in Euseb., Praeparat. Ewang., TV, 16,12. It is plain then 
that others besides Myron could have presented to Diodorus the 
confusion as to the period of Aristomenes. The reference then to 
the view of those who said that Aristomenes had taken part in the 
twenty years war, cited above from Diod., XV, 66, need not have 
been aimed at Myron. In fact, as the sketch of the Messenian 
wars given in Diod., XV, 66, was taken from Ephorus (Busolt, 
Griech. Gesch., I, 134), it is probable that the above-mentioned 
view was included, for no doubt Ephorus had himself to reckon 
with the two opinions as to the period of Aristomenes (see c. IV, δ). 

As to the Kleonnis-Aristomenes fragment in Diod., VIII, it is 
more than doubtful whether this ought to be credited to Diodorus, 
for it would have been inconsistent on the part of Diodorus to 
represent in book VIII Aristomenes as taking part in the first war, 
and then to associate him with the second war in XV, 66. The 
fact of his referring to the other view in the latter passage argues 
against the plea of an oversight. Such a discrepancy in Diodorus’ 
history would be especially remarkable if Eporus’ history served 
Diodorus as a source both for XV, 66, and for book VIII (En- 
mann, Pomp. Trog., 128 ff.). Fried. Jacobs, Verm. Schrif., 8% Bd., 
Leipzig, 1844, thought it better to restore the Kleonnis-Aristomenes 
fragment to the anonymous writer, under which title H. Stephanus 
had edited it. Kohlmann, op. cit., 9, thought it was from Myron 
himself, which view is worthy of consideration, 


*Busolt, Gr. Gesch., I, 135, says: “Diese Geschichte [the story that Aristo- 
menes killed Theopompos, who lived in the first war] war freilich keine dem 
Myron eigene Erfindung, soudern gehérte zu der Spiteren messenischen Uber- 
lieferung,”’ etc. 














20 A Study in the Sources of 


Diod., VIII, 6, corresponds with Paus., c. 9,14, but only in so 
far as Diodorus gives in prose the oracle which is quoted by Paus- 
anias. Verbal agreement is therefore of no consequence, for these 
oracles were without doubt widely known. Eusebius, Praep. 
Evang., V, 27, 3, has the same oracle, although somewhat con- 
densed, expressed in hexameters. .A like correspondence exists 
between Paus., c. 12,1, and Diod., VIII, 13, as another oracle 
quoted by Pausanias is also quoted by Diodorus; but here, too, 
Eusebius, op. cit., V, 27, 1, has the same oracle, this time word for 
word. For the frequency of these oracles, compare Strabo, 257, 
where still another oracle concerning the downfall of Messenia is 
mentioned, and also Isocrates, Archidam., 31: πεμψάντων ἀμφοτέ- 
ρων eis Δελφούς. 

According to Diod., VIII, 6, the occasion for sending to the 
oracle was partly owing to the howling of the dogs. In Paus., c. 
13, 1, the howling of dogs is also mentioned, but in an entirely 
different connection (see c. V, a). Moreover, the cavilling in this 
passage of Diodorus at the efficiency of the seers does not harmonize 
with the respect shown Epebolus, nor with the sending of Tisis to 
Dolphi, who was also a seer, nor with the religious tone generally 
in Pausanias’ account. 

There is one small fragment, 2. e., Diod., VIII, 13, 2, whose 
contents are to the effect that the Spartans do not require long 
exhortations, and the Messenians trust to their valor, which, it is 
true, would agree very well with Myron’s account; but it is rather 
general in its application, and could easily belong to another source. 

The examination of the fragments so far shows that there is not 
sufficient evidence in them to prove that Diodorus drew on Myron 
for his account of the first Messenian war. The decision in the case 
of the Polychares fragment must be made therefore upon the merits 
of the latter alone. 


d). Polychares. 


We shall find on examining this fragment that on the one hand 
the differences between the two versions are too great for Myron to 
have been the source of both of them, and on the other hand that 
Pausanias’ version harmonizes with what is known of Myron’s 


style. 


The Messeniaca of Pausanias. 21 


Tbe Polychares story is only found in Pausanias and Diodorus, 
and, as regards the essentials, is about the same in both of these 
writers. But the mere telling of the same story is no proof of the 
identity of the source, as the essentials could have been found in 
different writers just as we find them now in Pausanias and in 
Diodorus. Moreover, in comparing the two stories, differences in 
detail can be observed, and it will also be evident that the one in 
Pausanias is favorable to the Messenians, whereas the other has a 
flavor of Spartan sympathy. 

The differences in the two versions cannot be due to either Dio- 
dorus or Pausanias, for the former tells his story in the ace. and 
inf., and has evidently given a condensation ; and we know of the 
latter that his literary activity consisted mainly in condensing and 
compiling. Besides those parts wherein Pausanias differs from 
Diodorus are mainly in the line of animosity shown towards the 
Spartans. Accordingly the avariciousness of Euaephnus, which is 
an intrinsic part of the story, is merely stated in Diodorus, but 
sharply criticised in Pausanias (cf. p. 19). 

Both versions have by accident the same length, i. e., 35 lines of 
the Teubner text. This however is brought about by the expand- 
ing of different parts of the story in the respective accounts. In 
Diodorus the conviction of Euaephnus is the principal part; in 
Pausanias this part is not only meagrely treated, but different. So 
we find that in Diodorus all the herdsmen escape and come back to 


_ Polychares ; in Pausanias only one. In Diodorus, after they have 


told their story they are concealed by Polychares, who sends for 
Kuaephnus, and while this one is telling a fabricated story, Poly- 
chares confronts him with the escaped herdsmen. This marks a 
climax in Diodorus’ account, and has dramatic power. In Pausa- 
nias the single herdsman who escaped finds Euaephnus already with 
Polychares, which is tame. In Diodorus Polychares’ son, who is 
to be murdered, is only mentioned when he is sent’ with Euaephnus 
to receive the money for the cattle. In Pausanias Euaephnus pleads 
with the son as well as with the father to be forgiven, and then 
asks that the son go with him in order to receive the money, which 
makes the crime of Euaephnus in killing the young man appear all 
the blacker. In fact, the murder of Polychares’ son forms a climax 
in Pausanias’ account; in Diodorus it is told without color. 
2 





22 A Study in the Sources of 


Finally, according to Diodorus, Polychares demands that the 
culprit be delivered up to him ; but the Lacedaemonians send the 
son of Huaephnus to him with a letter, asking him to come to 
Sparta and lay his complaint before the Ephors and kings. Then 
Polychares commits a crime in his turn, and murders the son of 
Euaephnus, thus bringing destruction on his country. The story 
in Diodorus is clearly intended to bring discredit on the Messe- 
nians. According to Pausanias Polychares goes repeatedly to the 
kings and Ephors, and complains bitterly of his wrongs, and only 
after he finds that no attention is paid him does he become desperate 
and then kills every Lacedaemonian that falls into his hands. 

We have thus seen that Diodorus’ version of the Polychares story 
could not have been derived from Myron. At the same time the 
strong Messenian bias in Pausanias’ version, and the intimate con- 
nection and harmony of this story with the rest of the discussion 
concerning the causes of the war, make it highly probable that 
Myron served Pausanias also as a source for this part of the 
introduction. ! 

We have found, on examining the introduction and comparing 
it with the account of the war, that there are a number of striking 
resemblances in these two parts. So we find, not to mention other 
points, the same charges made against the Spartans in the introduc- 
tion that are referred to in the account of the war: moreover, the 
same partisanship, the same elaboration of detail, and the same style 
of romancing. If we read continuously, we shall find that there is 
no break at the place where the war begins, but all is closely linked 
together. The conclusion, therefore, seems justified that, leaving 
aside some minor additions, Pausanias did not compile his intro- 
duction to the Messenian wars from different sources, but that he 


depended entirely on Myron. 


III. Pavusantas’ SKETCH OF THE CLOSE OF THE 
First WAR. 


Let us now turn our attention to the end of Myron’s history of 
the first war, which must have been strangely cut short, if we ane 
to trust to Pausanias, c. 6: ὁ μὲν τῆς τε ᾿Αμφείας τὴν ἅλωσιν καὶ 
τὰ ἐφεξῆς συνέθηκεν, οὐ πρόσω τῆς ᾿Αριστοδήμου τελευτῆς. These 


The Messeniaca of Pausanias. 23 


words seem to have been taken literally by most scholars, So 
Enmann, Trog. Pomp., 124, says: “ Myron hatte den ersten Krieg 
nur bis zum Tode des Aristodemus erzahlt (Paus., IV, 6, 2). In 
Folge dessen lisst es Pausanias ganz im Unklaren, wie der Krieg 
schliesslich geendet habe (Paus., IV, 13, 6). That Pausanias 
himself did not take his own words literally can be seen in ὁ. 23,6: 
μετῴκησε δὲ ᾿Αλκιδαμίδας ἐκ Μεσσήνης ἐς Ῥήγιον μετὰ τὴν 
᾿Αριστοδήμου τοῦ βασιλέως τελευτὴν καὶ ᾿Ιθώμης τὴν ἅλωσιν. 
Here the death of Aristodemus and the fall of Ithome, events sepa- 
rated only by the space of five months, are treated as contempora- 
neous. If Myron had omitted to extend his history to the capture 
of Ithome, where could Pausanias have found an account of the 
end of the war as he gives it; very much condensed it is true, yet 
in perfect accord with the previous history? For we must remem- 
ber that Myron’s account was to a large extent fictitious. 

A detailed examination of the text of Pausanias will show the 
close agreement with the previous history, c. 138, 5: τοῖς δὲ 
Μεσσηνίοις ἀπεγνωκέναι τὰ πράγματα παρίστατο, ὥστε καὶ 
ὥρμησαν ἱκεσίαν ἐς τοὺς Λακεδαιμονίους ἀποστέλλειν οὕτω σφό- 
Opa κατέπληξεν αὐτοὺς ἡ τοῦ ᾿Αριστοδήμου τελευτή. καὶ τοῦτο 
μὲν ὁ θυμὸς ἐπέσχεν αὐτοὺς μὴ ποιῆσαι. The anger of the Mes- 
senians is a marked feature of Myron’s account (see Ρ. 19 and ο. 
VI, a). Continuing, we find in ec. 13, 5: συλλεγέντες δὲ ἐς 
ἐκκλησίαν βασιλέα μὲν οὐδένα, Δᾶμιν δὲ στρατηγὸν αὐτοκράτορα 
εἵλοντο. This democratic feature of the assembly was also peculiar 
to Myron, as the following passages will show : ce. 5, 6; 6,6; 9,1; 
9,3; 9,4; 12,5. The freedom of speech implied in the above 
passages gave of course to Myron, the rhetorician, the desired 
opportunities to compose orations. There is no trace of the ἐκκλησία 
in the account of the second war. Having called the assembly, ὁ. 
13, 5, they elect a leader as follows: βασιλέα μὲν οὐδένα, Δᾶμιν 
δὲ στρατηγὸν αὐτοκράτορα εἵλοντο " ὁ δὲ Κλέοννίν τε αὑτῷ καὶ 
Φυλέα ἑλόμενος συνάρχοντας κ.τ.λ. Compare with this c. 10, 6, 
where Aristodemus, on becoming king, shows marked attention to 
Kleonnis and Damis, who have been his rivals. It was then quite 
natural that Damis should later follow the precedent set by the king, 

The text continues: [Δᾶμις] παρεσκευάζετο ὡς καὶ ἐκ τῶν 
παρόντων συνάψων μάχην * ἐπηνάγκαξε γὰρ ἥ τε πολιορκία καὶ 





24 A Study in the Sources of 


οὐχ ἥκιστα ὁ λιμὸς Kal [τὸ] ἀπ᾽ αὐτοῦ δέος, μὴ Kal eam gtow aed 
ὑπὸ ἐνδείας. This fighting before the walls of the besieged . t mas 
seems to have been a feature of Myron’s history. At no time di 
the Spartans actually attack the walls of this stronghold ; but a 
after retiring to Ithome all the fighting is done outside of the τον on 
It was different at the siege of Eira, for there the walls were sca 
with ladders (c. 21, 1). ae ἢ 
The text continues: ἀρετῇ μὲν δὴ καὶ τολμήμασιν οὐδὲ τότε 
ἀπεδέησε τὰ τῶν Μεσσηνίων ἀπέθανον δὲ οἵ τε στρατηγοί cee 
ἅπαντες καὶ TOV ἄλλων οἱ λόγου μάλιστα ἄζιοι. This heroism 0 
the Messenians is the same that is displayed in the jeerinus chap- 
ters. Finally we read: τὸ δὲ ἀπὸ τούτου μῆνας pe eee were 
μάλιστα ἀντέσχον . περὶ δὲ τὸν ἐνιαυτὸν λήγοντα ἐξέλιπον τὴν 
Ἰθώμην, πολεμήσαντες ἔτη τὰ πάντα ἔικοσι, καθὰ δὴ καὶ Τυρταίῳ 


΄ 
πεποιημένα ἐστίν. 


, ” / 
εἰκοστῷ δ᾽ οἱ μὲν κατὰ πίονα ἔργα λιπόντες 
. / > Se 
φεῦγον Ἰθωμαίων ἐκ μεγάλων ὀρέων. 


It is not simply stated here that they fought twenty years ; but 
time is measured out with care, so that we are made to see that t le 
Messenians left Ithome at the close of the twentieth year. This 
seems to show that Pausanias followed Myron in writing the con- 
clusion of the war; but, as usual, found in Ephorus (see c. IV, b) 
the verses of Tyrtaeus, which he quotes. And as Ephorus 02% 
preted these verses to mean that the war lasted βίλομα yous (c ; 
Strabo, 279: Μεσσήνη δὲ ἑάλω πολεμηθεῖσα oo ty 
καθάπερ καὶ Τυρταῖός φησιν “ ἀμφ᾽ αὐτὴν κ. τ. X.), this τε the 
very reason why Pausanias, in adopting the usual main 0 ‘twenty 
years, as Myron no doubt had it (cf. ο. 12, τ: καὶ γὰρ εἰκοστὸν 
ἔτος ἐπήει τῷ πολέμῳ), laid some stress on this very point in oppo- 
sition to Ephorus’ nineteen years, and, curiously, chose the last we 
verses from a quotation from Tyrtaeus, which Ephorus had a 5 
279) to prove this, although he quotes the ober verses 8 few alia 
ters below (c. 15, 2), as follows: ἀμφ᾽ αὐτὴν δ᾽ ἐμάχοντ᾽ ἐννέα καὶ 
ix” ETN, K. τ. Ne : 
the ies discussion shows, I think, that Myron did continue 
his history to the end of the war. The account Pausanias gives is 
probably very much condensed, and no doubt also full of omissions, 


The Messeniaca of Pausanias. 25 


just as we find the allusions Euphaes makes (6, 7, 10-11) to the 
horrors suffered by the inhabitants of Ampheia at the hands of the 
Lacedaemonians not fully justified by the account of its capture 
(c. 5, 9). It would have been unaccountable if Myron had really 
ended his history with the death of Aristodemus, in view of the 
comparatively broad manner in which he has treated the first war. 

It is however not so difficult to understand why Pausanias should 
have mentioned the death of Aristodemus instead of the capture of 
Ithome. For, as the narrative reaches its climax with the death of 
Aristodemus, and the end was then so near that Pausanias consid- 
ered the fall of Ithome as happening at the same time (see p. 23), 
it may be that Pausanias fixed the end of the war with the most 
important event. But there may have been also the following 
reasons: Myron did not represent the war he described as the first 
war (see c. V, a), nor did his history end with the fall of Ithome, 
as will be shown below. Therefore Pausanias had to construct a 
transition from Myron’s history to an account of the second war, 
and probably found it difficult to find a suitable point from which 
to bridge over. For that reason he directed his attention to the 
death of Aristodemus as the virtual conclusion of the first war, and 
condensed the final outcome so as hardly to mention the exiles, 
which probably made a transition to the second war easier. 


That Myron also wrote of the banishment of the Messenians is 
very probable, since I have shown that he extended his history to 
the capture of Ithome. This probability is strengthened when we 
observe that the exiles sought refuge with the Sicyonians, Argives 
and Arcadians, who had been the allies of the Messenians, and we 
consider that this alliance was probably the fiction of Myron (see 
c. V, ὁ). 

But this departure of the Messenians from Ithome implies that 
the Spartans allowed them to leave under a truce. Now we read 
in Thucydides, I, 103, that at the end of the third war the Messen- 
lans were allowed to depart, which may easily have been the source 
for the idea that at the end of the first and second wars (c. 14, 1 
and c. 21, 12) the Messenians were allowed each time to depart. 
The account of Rhianus cannot be considered historical, and there 





26 A Study in the Sources of 


seems to be no other evidence outside of Pausanias that the Messen- 
ians left their country at the end of the first war, although we see 
in Strabo, 257, and Heracl. Pont., Pol. (Miller, Frag. Hist. Gr., 
219), that there had been some Messenian fugitives before the first 
war. Accordingly, we read in the sketch of the Messenian wars 
given by Diodorus, XV, 66, only of the banishment after the third 
war. 

It therefore appears likely that Pausanias had no other source 
for the exile after the first war than Myron, who, as we have seen 
(p. 12), used Thucydides as a model. A sign of this dependence 
may be seen in c. 14, 4, where it is stated that the Lacedaemonians 
made the Messenians swear not to revolt, which seems a somewhat 
useless exaction, and was probably an imitation of Thuc., I, 103, 
according to which passage the Messenians are allowed to depart on 
condition that they should never return to the Peloponnesus under 
penalty of becoming the slave of whosoever might capture them. 


IV. THe Sources ror CHaprers XIV-XVII oTHER 
THAN Myron. 


a). I next undertake to investigate the sources which Pausanias 
used in writing the first half of the second Messenian war. We 
have therefore to do with the chapters which lie between the close 
of the first war, which Myron described, and the beginning of 
Rhianus’ epic (7. 6., cc. 14-17, 10). According to c. 6, Pausanias 
had neither Myron nor Rhianus to depend on for this part, as the 
former had nothing to say about the second war, and Rhianus’ 
poem must have begun with the siege of Eira (c. 17, 11). 

It is easy to see that Pausanias used no single source for filling 
in these chapters. In the first place, with regard to the duration of 
the war, there exists a discrepancy between the account in Pausa- 
nias, according to which it lasted fourteen years, and the dates 
given by him, according to which it lasted seventeen years. A sign 
of Pausanias’ greater activity in these chapters can be seen in the 
more frequent employment of the first person (cf. cc. 14, 78 ; 15, 2; 
15,3; 16,6; 16,7). Then in c. 14, 2, he repeats, with some 
slight changes, a passage which occurs in III, 18, 8. 


The Messeniaca of Pausanias. 27 


The sources which Pausanias used in writing chapters cc. 14-17, 
10, seem to have been Ephorus, Sosibius, Rhianus, and more par- 


ticularly, as I shall show inc. V, Myron. I shall take them u 
in order. : 


δ). Ephorus and Tyrtaeus. 


Kohlmann (op. cit., 23), thought that Pausanias had drawn on 
Ephorus and Diodorus for these chapters, but that the quotations 
were taken from Tyrtaeus at first hand. I think, however, that 
Ephorus was used only to a slight extent, and that chiefly to et 
the quotations from Tyrtaeus, i 

That Pausanias was familiar with the history of Ephorus 
although he does not mention his name, is ὦ priori quite likely a 
Ephorus’ history was widely read and largely excerpted by ‘ies 
historians, owing no doubt in a great measure to convenient arrange- 
ment. But there is also direct proof that Pausanias made extracts 
from him in book IIT (cf. Immerwahr, op. cit. 11 and 17 ), and, as 
the frequent references show, this book was closely niwoctaied in 
elie mind with the one under consideration. Cf. ITI, 1, 1-5 : 
ries tal ἐῷ 4-65 21,8; 134; 14:4. 15,10; 18,7; 20,6; 

Now as Myron had included Aristomenes in his account of the 
first war, and this same Aristomenes was the chief figure in Rhia- 


᾿ Dus’ poem, Pausanias had to decide which of these two to follow. 


He accordingly gives some reasons in c. 6 why he intends to follow 
Rhianus ; but as Rhianus dealt only with a part of the war, and 
was himself untrustworthy, according to Pausanias’ own statement 
we must look elsewhere for some clear guide, who could map iat 
the first and second wars, and show from the proper position of 
Aristomenes that Rhianus was the one to be followed. Ephorus 
could have been that guide, for he gives a sketch of the two wars, 


and distinctly states that Aristomenes took art i 
th 
Died. EY on, part in the second war 


As to the quotations from Tyrtaeus, these have been pretty gen- 
erally looked upon as being at first hand. Yet we cannot trust 
Pausanias in this respect, for, as Enmann (Jahrb. J. Phil., 129, p. 





28 A Study in the Sources of 


519) says, we must expect Pausanias to have made use of the labors 
of others, or else he would never have succeeded in collecting such 
a great mass of learning. Besides, there are other quotations in 
Pausanias which seem to be at first hand, although taken from an 


intermediate source. 
Thus in ὁ. 1 there are quotations from Homer which are at 


second hand, although they seem to have been made independently, 
and although Pausanias would make us believe that he was especi- 
ally well versed in Homer. In II, 21, 10, he says: πρόσκειμαι 
yap πλέον τι ἢ οἱ λοιποὶ TH Ὁμήρου ποιήσει; and in II, 4,2: 
ἐγώ τε πείθομαι καὶ ὅστις τὰ Ὁμήρου μὴ πάρεργον ἐπελέξατο. 
And yet, on comparing Paus., 6. 1, with Strabo, 364, it is plain 
that both passages go back ultimately to the same source, which 
was probably Aristarchus (cf. Sengebusch, Jahrbiicher f. Cl. Phil., 
1853, p. 615). Enmann and L. v. Sybel have shown the close 
resemblance between Pausanias and Strabo generally in Homeric 
geography, a resemblance due to their common source. 

Now we know that Ephorus based his history on the verses of 
Tyrtaeus (cf. O. Miiller, Dorier, I, 149, 3; Busolt, Gr. Gesch. I, 
134; Enmann, Trog. Pomp., 126) ; and we find in Strabo, 279, 
under Ephorus’ name, the same verses from Tyrtaeus which are 
quoted by Pausanias (c. 13, 6, and c. 15, 2). As regards the 
former of these passages it must be observed that Pausanias sepa- 
rated the verses from their proper connection in order to make his 
own application of them (see p. 25). This he did likewise with the 
verses of Homer mentioned above, whose application in Pausanias 
is different from that in Strabo. Again, the verses of Tyrtaeus 
quoted in c. 14, 5, which tell of the sufferings of the Messenians, 
were no doubt also quoted by Ephorus, as they are indicated in 
Justinus, III, 5 (cf. Enmann, Trog. Pomp.): Dein, cum per annos 
octoginta gravia servitutis verbera, plerumque et vincula, ceteraque 
captivitatis mala perpessi essent, post longam poenarum patientiam, 


bellum instaurant. 
It seems also reasonable to suppose that the quotation (c. 6, 5) 


from Tyrtaeus, 
Ἡμετέρῳ βασιλῆϊ θεοῖσι φίλῳ Θεοπόμπῳ, 
Ὃν διὰ Μεσσήνην εἵλομεν εὐρύχορον, 


The Messeniaca of Pausanias. 29 


es mace ak see Pausanias cited them to demonstrate 
ompus had survived the first war, thus showi 
; owing th 
mea Ses Rei εραρβρρας to whom Thespesia sat hicel 
e death of Aristodemus by Aristo 
But Ephorus had in all ili ‘ arcu 
probability to deal with the same i 
s . : 
as to the period of Aristomenes, and so the statement in Diod., XV, 
on 3 


πόλεμον, Was in all likelih 
ae eel elihood taken from Ephorus with the rest 
Ἢ cate = a in 6, 15, 2-3, seems to reason out the 
etween the first two wars on the basi 
Tyrtaeus, we shall be safe i ibuti Recon pcs bs! 
yrtae n attributing this use of these verses 
to 
pF a = hae who quotes the same verses (Strabo, 279) 
make a similar calculation. If P 
his quotations from Tyrtaeus i 3 κιρνιεμβρερενηάκετος 
us independently we migh 
ght expect to 
some feeling for the Spartans displayed, but there is ae of this 
b 


and Tyrtaeus himself i 
ETE ER self is but a shadowy figure in the pages of 


6). Sosibius. 


ἐρένερυμον did, however, not follow Ephorus in his chronolo 
~ ᾿ Ρ ae the first war much earlier than 743 B. C: (Paus. Be 
eet : i - Gr. Gesch., I, 151), and made the interval betes 
wafiycations ΕΝ war eighty years (cf. Enmann, op. cit., 126). 
peas τ er ogy of Sosibius which Pausanias follows. Kohl- 
papatnect 6 mee show this by pointing out that the dates for 
aes, r, which Pausanias gives, agree with the chronology of 
osibius ; and Immerwahr, following up the work done by Weber! 
has shown that a work on genealogy by Sosibius had =a τ : 
sively used by Pausanias in book ITT, and probably to some aa 


in book IV. He also makes it a 1 

al ppear high] b 
chronology of Sosibius had been used for es cy “ bea 
Rornyenl = rather too much stress upon the use Suasahis 
made of Sosibius i 
ee. lus in the Messeniaca. See Immerwahr, Lakonika, 


‘ 
Quaestionum Laconicarum Capita Duo. Gottingae, 1887. 





30 A Study in the Sources of 


d). Reasons why Ephorus’ History not used more Extensively. 


But why should Pausanias not use Ephorus’ history more exten- 
sively if he had it before him? Simply because it was so widely 
known, and the plan of Pausanias was to avoid telling over again 
at length what other well known authors had described before him. 
In VIII, 43, 4, he refrains from going into details; for he says: 
τάδε μὲν ἄλλοι ἔγραψαν ἐς τὸ ἀκριβέστατον ; likewise in I, 23, 
10: τὰ δέ ἐς Ἑρμόλυκον τὸν παγκρατιαστὴν καὶ Φορμίωνα τὸν 
᾿Ασωπίχου γραψάντων ἑτέρων παρίημι ; yet he is ever ready to 
make additions to what is generally known, so he continues: ἐς δὲ 
Φορμίωνα τοσόνδε ἔχω πλέον γράψαι. In X, 17, we find three 
and three-fourths pages on the island of Sardinia; his reason for 
this long digression being that this island was little known to the 
Greeks, just as it has been comparatively little known in modern 
times’ (cf. also 11, 30,10; III, 17, 7; If1, 18, 10). Now it was 
the highly colored narrative of Myron and the epic of Rhianus 
which Pausanias recognized as being less known, and which he 
therefore was quite willing to draw upon. 

But I must add another reason why Pausanias would prefer the 
accounts of Myron and Rhianus, and that is because they were 
written from the Messenian point of view. It was evidently part 
of the plan of Pausanias to let each people of the different countries 
which he described speak for themselves, even in the historical 
introductions, which, as: is generally accepted, were taken from 
literary sources. As regards the use of verba dicendi where literary 
sources are at hand, Gurlitt (op. cit., c. 1, N. 48) has shown that 
this was a matter of style with Pausanias and not of deception. 
Observe the following passages—I, 41, 4: ἐγὼ δὲ γράφειν μὲν 
ἐθέλω Μεγαρεῦσιν ὁμολογοῦντα, 41, 7: ηράψω δὲ καὶ τὰ és 
αὐτὴν ὁποῖα Μεγαρεῖς λέγουσιν. In the Corinthiaka he appeals 
to the Corinthians, II, 1: Διὸς δὲ εἶναι Κόρινθον οὐδένα οἶδα 
εἰπόντα πω σπονδῇ πλὴν Κορινθίων τῶν πολλῶν; 11,4,6: Ἡλίου 
δέ, ὡς οἱ Κοφίνθιοί φασιν. Likewise he appeals to the Sicyonians 
in II, 5, 6: Σικυώνιοι δὲ, οὗτοι yap ταύτῃ Κορινθίοις εἰσὶν ὅμοροι, 
περὶ τῆς χώρας τῆς σφετέρας λέγουσιν. Having come to Argos 


1 Daniel, Lehrbuch. d. Geogr., 1882, p. 212. 


The Messeniaca of Pausanias, 31 
he lets the Argives speak for themselves ( 
owing right upon an account of 

; 3 
a literary source, 
ὡς δὲ αὐτοὶ Λακεὸ 


mon we read, III, 1,1: 
E αὐτόχθων, which heads 


, / 
atpmovior λέγουσι, AéXe 


ἥκιστα, ἐμοὶ δοκεῖν, ἀλη- 

εἶναι, εὐυκίππου παῖδα ᾿Ασκλη- 
ie ὃ χρησμὸς δηλοὶ μάλιστα οὐκ 
ἀλλὰ Ἡσίοδον ἢ τῶν τινὰ ἐμπεποιηκό 
συνθέντα ἐς 


, τὴν Μεσσηνίων χάριν. 
read: ᾿Αρσινόης γὰρ ᾿Ασκληπιὸν τῆς 
ος παῖδα εἶναι; again, in ὁ, ὍΣ, 13% 


/ nw 
vons ὧν λόγῳ τῷ Μεσσηνίων. 
Ὦ version 1s also mention 
must remembe 


That Pausani 


explained simply by the 
ts own story. Now the 





32 A Study in the Sources of 


Rhianus had mentioned her in his fourth book (8. ν. caste se 
Pausanias has here only a fragmentary notice, as can = : ῳ 
the matter that follows, which has been partly given = ἐν ' . 
Immerwahr suggests that Rhianus furnished in ¢. 1 ΣΝ — τᾷ 
of the expedition to oe ἘΝ —— : οὐ ~ wy = 
n, and liberated by Archidameia, . 

isda, II, 31, 2); but this may be doubted, δρόδονὰ κεραυνῷ 
like that could very well have belonged to Myron’s s = eS 
also c. VI, ὃ, for the significance of the fact that Deme — 
into this anecdote. But no doubt there were other touc sige 
and there, introduced into these chapters from Rhianus, as wiz., 
names of the seers Theoclus and Hecas. 


10 
V. Myron THE Curer Source For CHapters XIV-XVIT? 


a). Myron used Tradition that pertained to the Second War. 


To a much larger extent, however, was Myron’s met παρα 
Before showing this in detail it will be necessary - — geo 
i it i lly understood, Myron 
this was possible ; for, as it is genera 
only the tities of the first war. Above (p. 12) it was gare 
out that Myron wrote rather a romance than a sate eb 
fact must be added another, viz., that Myron made use 0 t a θᾷ ε 
tion relating to the second war as well as of that which pertai 
the first. 
μή ον Myron should have ignored the existence of τ᾿ — 
Messenian war, although the verses of Tyrtaeus clearly s om 
there had been two early wars, is not at all unlikely, for t ere 
passages from other writers which likewise overlook the — 
of the second war. To understand this it — πνομίαρ _ ᾿ 
i f men would rever 6 
was only natural that the minds o wuld 
πῶ “hich the Messenians first lost their liberty. ‘Thus Iso 


The Messeniaca of Pausanias, | 


Again we read in Plutarch, De 8. N. V., p. 548, F: 


ὡρεθεῖσι τῆς ᾿Αριστοκράτου 


The first war 
in this passage, for the second wa 


n of the two wars is to be found 
is associated with the twenty years war 


Finally, that others besides Myron had connected 
Aristomenes with the first war has been shown above (see p. 11), 


place, we must call to mi 


nd that Pausanias omitted all that related 
to Aristomenes from his 


But even so, we 


-- aoe 
ae ae 
stella Satin 


: r. Likewise γάδες in the 

crates, Archidam., 57, refers only to the first wa ae frst: war (c. 11, 4), oe 
stitione, 8, in making a reference to the : 

Hiateren, 146 Ruparatitions, ἃ, k distinc- Again, we find i desperation of 

which Aristodemus figured (i. 6., the first war), makes no dist oo the Memeniane ‘Ths 

tion between a first and a second war, but simply refers to 

war with the Lacedaemonians.” 


» + ὡ. 
τς EPPO OS με bettie ted == 
———— eee - 


Sr 


- -- - 





34 A Study in the Sources of 


first war Tisis delivers his message and dies (c. 9, 4); Aristodemus 
sacrifices his daughter (c. 9, 8) ; Euphaes dies a heroic death (c. 10, 
3); Aristodemus commits suicide (c. 13, 4). In the second war 
Theoclus rushes into the enemies’ lines and is slain (c. 21, 10); 
Euergetides with fifty volunteers allows himself to be cut to pieces 
by the Spartans (c. 23,2). In both wars seers are active. In the 
first war (c. 10, 5), Epebolus and Ophioneus oppose the election of 
Aristodemus ; in the second Theoclus and Hecas take a prominent 
part. 

In the account of Myron, as well as in that of Rhianus, the 
contending parties look upon the Messenian territory as already 
belonging to the Lacedaemonians (cf. c. 7, 1, with c. 18,1). This 
appears a little strange in Myron’s account, because Messenia had 
not yet been conquered, and such an event was at that time (c. 7, 
1) remote. 

Again, in both accounts the howling of dogs is associated with 
the close of the respective wars (7. 6., c. 13, 1, and c. 21,1). In 
Plut. De Superstitione, 8, the howling of dogs is mentioned in a 
passage which bears a strong resemblance to Paus., c. 13,1; so 
much so that Plutarch must have drawn either from Myron or, 
what is more probable, from Myron’s source. On the other hand, 
in Diod., VIII, 6, the howling of dogs is also mentioned as taking 
place in the first war, but in a different connection from that in 
Paus., c. 13, 1, which illustrates very well the confused condition 


of the tradition. 
For the occurrence of Corinthians in both accounts see c. V, 6, 


end. 

Cretan archers figure as allies of the Lacedaemonians in Myron’s 
account as well as in that of Rhianus (cf. cc. 8,3; 8,12; 10,1; 
with cc. 19,4; 20,8). This must have been overlooked by O. 
Miller, Dorier, I, 144, 6, who says: “ Die Kretischen Bogen- 
schiitzen hat Rhianus aus seiner Heimat hinein gebracht ; es gab 
gewiss da so friih keine Séldlinge,” which remark was adopted by 
Meineke, Abhandlungen, Berlin, 1832, and Kohlmann, op. cit. 19. 
For the fact that Cretans also play a réle in Myron’s account seems 
to imply that they figured in the tradition. And yet Cretans are 
mentioned as hired troops in Thuc., VII, 57, 9, and as archers 
ibid., V1, 25, 2, and 43, which is significant for Myron since he 


The Messeniaca of Pausanias. 35 


worked out his history, as Busolt has shown, from a frame-work 
which he derived from Thucydides and Xenophon (see p. 12), 

In c. 6 Pausanias almost tells us that Myron had written of the 
first two Messenian wars as if they had constituted but one. We 
can plainly see in this chapter, where Pausanias discusses the works 
of Myron and Rhianus, the influence of both these writers: that of 
Rhianus in the reference to the Iliad (c. 6, 13) and the Trojan war 
(c. 6,1); that of Myron in the sentence (c. 6, 3): ᾿Αριστομένην 
ds καὶ πρῶτος καὶ μάλιστα τὸ Μεσσήνης ὄνομα ἐς ἀξίωμα coin: 

Ὑαγε, τοῦτον τὸν ἄνδρα ἐπεισήγαγε μὲν ὁ Πριηνεὺς ἐς τὴν συγηγρα- 
φήν. The attribute πρῶτος could have been applied by Pausanias 
to Aristomenes only in case this one had figured in the first war 
for otherwise Euphaes and Aristodemus would have preceded bien, 
Now it was, in my opinion, the influence of Myron which induced 
Pausanias (c. 6) to speak of the two wars together as one war 
This he does very clearly (c. 6, 1), and it is easy to see him gradu 
ally making a distinction. After speaking several times of the 
two wars together as one, he makes the statement (c. 6, 2) that 
Myron wrote only from the taking of Ampheia to the death of 
Aristodemus, and then calls that part of the first war. Such a 
development would have been superfluous if Myron’s history had 
not contained 80 much tradition that pertained to the second war. 


δ). Certain parts dealing with Aristomenes Jrom Myron. 


Let us now see what parts of ce. 14-17, 10, can be referred to 
Myron. Most of the passages will naturally contain matter 
concerning Aristomenes, for he was the hero of the second war 
Pausanias (c. 6) tells us that Rhianus’ poem began with the ovente 
after the battle of the Great Trench (c. 17), and on the other hand 
that Myron had included Aristomenes in his history, and adds: 
ὁ τοίνυν ᾿Αριστομένης δόξῃ γε ἐμῇ γέγονεν ἐπὶ τοῦ πολέμου τοῦ 
ὕστερου, καὶ τὰ ἐς ἀυτὸν, ἐπειδὰν ἐς τοῦτο ὁ λόγος ἀφίκηται 
τηνικαῦτα ἐπέξειμι. : 

According to Diod., XV, 66, Aristomenes alone persuaded the 
Messenians to revolt, which.agrees with the prominence Rhianus 
assigns to him, and is justified by Polybius (IV, 33), who calls the 
second one the “war of Aristomenes.” But in Pausanias others 








34 A Study im the Sources of 


first war Tisis delivers his message and dies (c. 9, 4); Aristodemus 
sacrifices his daughter (c. 9, 8) ; Euphaes dies a heroic death (c. 10, 
3); Aristodemus commits suicide (c. 13, 4). In the second war 
Theoclus rushes into the enemies’ lines and is slain (c. 21, 10); 
Euergetides with fifty volunteers allows himself to be cut to pieces 
by the Spartans (c. 23, 2). In both wars seers are active. In the 
first war (c. 10, 5), Epebolus and Ophioneus oppose the election of 
Aristodemus ; in the second Theoclus and Hecas take a prominent 
part. 

In the account of Myron, as well as in that of Rhianus, the 
contending parties look upon the Messenian territory as already 
belonging to the Lacedaemonians (cf. c. 7, 1, with ο. 18, 1). This 
appears a little strange in Myron’s account, because Messenia had 
not yet been conquered, and such an event was at that time (c. 7, 
1) remote. 

Again, in both accounts the howling of dogs is associated with 
the close of the respective wars (7. 6., c. 13, 1, and ο. 21,1). In 
Plut. De Superstitione, 8, the howling of dogs is mentioned in a 
passage which bears a strong resemblance to Paus., c. 13, 1; so 
much so that Plutarch must have drawn either from Myron or, 
what is more probable, from Myron’s source. On the other hand, 
in Diod., VIII, 6, the howling of dogs is also mentioned as taking 
place in the first war, but in a different connection from that in 
Paus., c. 13, 1, which illustrates very well the confused condition 


of the tradition. 
For the occurrence of Corinthians in both accounts see c. V, ὁ, 


end. 

Cretan archers figure as allies of the Lacedaemonians in Myron’s 
account as well as in that of Rhianus (ef. cc. 8, 3; 8,12; 10,1; 
with ec. 19,4; 20, 8). This must have been overlooked by O. 
Miller, Dorier, I, 144, 6, who says: “ Die Kretischen Bogen- 
schiitzen hat Rhianus aus seiner Heimat hinein gebracht; es gab 
gewiss da so friih keine Sdldlinge,” which remark was adopted by 
Meineke, Abhandlungen, Berlin, 1832, and Kohlmann, op. cit. 19. 
For the fact that Cretans also play a réle in Myron’s account seems 
to imply that they figured in the tradition. And yet Cretans are 
mentioned as hired troops in Thuc., VII, 57, 9, and as archers 
ibid., VI, 25, 2, and 43, which is significant for Myron since he 





The Messeniaca of Pausanias. 35 


worked out his history, as Busolt has shown, from a frame-work 
which he derived from Thucydides and Xenophon (see p. 12). 

In c. 6 Pausanias almost tells us that Myron had written of the 
first two Messenian wars as if they had constituted but one. We 
can plainly see in this chapter, where Pausanias discusses the works 
of Myron and Rhianus, the influence of both these writers: that of 
Rhianus in the reference to the Iliad (c. 6, 18) and the Trojan war 
(c. 6,1); that of Myron in the sentence (c. 6, 3): ᾿Αριστομένην, 
ὃς καὶ πρῶτος καὶ μάλιστα τὸ Μεσσήνης ὄνομα ἐς ἀξίωμα προή- 
γᾶγε, τοῦτον τὸν ἄνδρα ἐπεισήγαγε μὲν ὁ Πριηνεὺς ἐς τὴν συγγρα- 
φήν. The attribute πρῶτος could have been applied by Pausanias 
to Aristomenes only in case this one had figured in the first war 
for otherwise Euphaes and Aristodemus would have preceded Sis: 
Now it was, in my opinion, the influence of Myron which induced 
Pausanias (6. 6) to speak of the two wars together as one war. 
This he does very clearly (c. 6, 1), and it is easy to see him gradu- 
ally making a distinction. After speaking several times of the 
two wars together as one, he makes the statement (c. 6, 2) that 
Myron wrote only from the taking of Ampheia to the death of 
Aristodemus, and then calls that part of the first war. Such a 
development would have been superfluous if Myron’s history had 
not contained 80 much tradition that pertained to the second war. 


δ). Certain parts dealing with Aristomenes Jrom Myron. 


Let us now see what parts of cc. 14-17 , 10, can be referred to 
Myron. Most of the passages will naturally contain matter 
concerning Aristomenes, for he was the hero of the second war. 
Pausanias (c. 6) tells us that Rhianus’ poem began with the events 
after the battle of the Great Trench (c. 17), and on the other hand 
that Myron had included Aristomenes in his history, and adds; 
δ τοίνυν ᾿Αριστομένης δόξῃ γε ἐμῇ γέγονεν ἐπὶ τοῦ πολέμου τοῦ 
ὑστέρου, καὶ τὰ ἐς ἀυτὸν, ἐπειδὰν ἐς τοῦτο ὁ λόγος ἀφίκηται, 
τηνικαῦτα ἐπέξειμι. 

According to Diod., XV, 66, Aristomenes alone persuaded the 
Messenians to revolt, which.agrees with the prominence Rhianus 
assigns to him, and is justified by Polybius (IV, 33), who calls the 
second one the “war of Aristomenes.” But in Pausanias others 





36 A Study in the Sources of 


besides Aristomenes urged the Messenians to revolt (c. 14, 6-8), 
which agrees with Myron’s history, where the whole Messenian 
people are prominently brought out. Moreover, the words in ce. 
14, 6-7, ἐνῆγον δὲ οὐχ ἥκιστα ἐς τοῦτο Kal οἱ νεώτεροι, πολέμου 
μὲν ἔτι ἀπείρως ἔχοντες... ἘἜ“τετράφη δὲ νεότης καὶ ἀλλαχοῦ 
τῆς Μεσσηνίας, οἱ δὲ ἄριστοι καὶ ἀριθμὸν πλεῖστοι περὶ τὴν 
᾿Ανδανίαν, remind one of Thuc., II, 8: τότε δὲ καὶ νεότης πολλὴ 
μὲν οὖσα ἐν τῇ Πελοποννήσῳ, πολλὴ δ᾽ ἐν ταῖς ᾿Αθήναις οὐκ 
ἀκουσίος ὑπὸ ἀπειρίας ἥπτετο " τοῦ πολέμου κ. τ. λ.., and it was 
shown above that Myron depended on Thucydides. That Aris- 
tomenes was not the only one of the youth of Andania who played 
a prominent part can be seen in the story about Panormus and 
Gonippus (cf. c. 27, 1). We also read that Aristomenes was 
elected to be king, but refused the title, whereupon they made 
him στρατηγὸς αὐτοκράτωρ (c. 15, 4). This statement seems 
strange in this place, when we consider that Aristomenes in the 
second war, from first to last, directed the war, and there was no 
king nor general to share his power. On the other hand, this title 
would have been quite suitable in the first war, where there were 
kings to wield the chief power, so that Aristomenes could have 
carried on his guerilla warfare. Besides we have seen above that 
the title στρατηγὸς αὐτοκράτωρ occurred in Myron’s history (ef. 
Ρ. 23). 

The passage (c. 16, 3) telling about Aristomenes and his picked 
men at the battle of Capron Sema, was probably derived from 
Myron. Pausanias says inc. 16,3: Kara δέ αὐτὸν ᾿Αριστομένην 
εἶχεν οὕτω " λογάδες περὶ αὐτὸν ὀγδοήκοντα ἦσαν Μεσσηνιών, x. 
το; but in the Rhianus part, c. 18, 1, we read: ᾿Αριστομένης δὲ 
τοὺς περὶ αὐτὸν λογάδας és τριακοσίων ἀριθμὸν προήγαγεν. Now 
in Thuc., VI, 43, we find: τοξόταις δὲ τοῖς πᾶσιν ὀγδοήκοντα 
καὶ τετρακοσίους (καὶ τούτων Κρῆτες οἱ ὀγδοήκοντα ἦσαν), where 
a select company of eighty is made conspicuous. We have seen 
above (p. 34) that Myron had possibly introduced Cretans into his 
account from Thucydides. 


At the battle of the Great Trench, at which the Arcadian king 
Aristocrates betrayed the Messenians, Aristomenes, according to 





The Messeniaca of Pausanias. 37 


Pausanias, led his countrymen. We have already seen the likelj- 
hood that Plutarch had associated this event with the twenty years’ 
war (p. 32). The following considerations point clearly to Myron 
as Pausanias’ source for this battle. Almost the first words of this 
account seem noteworthy (c. 17, 2): καὶ Μεσσηνίοις ᾿Αρκάδων 
βεβοηθηκότων ἀπὸ πασῶν τῶν πόλεων, when compared with a 
passage in the account of the first war (c. 11, 1): τοῖς δὲ Μεσσηνί 

ous οἵ τε ᾿Αρκάδες πανστρατιᾷ, for it seems very improbable ka 
the whole of Arcadia would have participated in these struggles 

and we may see, therefore, in this a bit of Myron’s romancin 
Then, upon the statement that the Lacedaemonians bribed . 
Arcadian king Aristocrates, follows (c. 17, 3-5) a long tirade against 
the Spartans, who are said to have been the first to resort to briber 
in war. The animosity displayed here is quite of a piece with ad 
which has been shown to have been so prominent a feature in 
Myron’s history. Besides it must be remembered that Pausanias’ 
own attitude was that of an impartial historian (see c. WI, a, end) 
The threat of retribution made in c. 17, 6, also agrees with Myron’s 


history (see c. VII, 6). In c. 17, 6, there are indications that 


Aristocrates delivered a speech. In Ἢ. 17, 7, the Eleans Argives 
and Sicyonians are mentioned, which allies (as will be shou below) 


were very probably spoken of only in Myron’s account. 
In ο. 17, 8, follows a detail whi 


minds one of c. 7, where the Mess 


treacherously made to retreat 
through the lines of the Messenians, διὰ γὰρ Μεσσηνίων ἐποιεῖτο τὴ 
φυγήν, and this was done while the Spartans were advancin This, 
then, would appear to be some of Myron’s unmilitary iE : 
As the Arcadians pass through the lines of the Messenians ὡς 
latter chide them for their treachery, as follows : of δὲ καὶ χοιδο ΕΝ 
ἐς αὐτοὺς ὡς ἐς ἄνδρας προδότας καὶ οὐ δικαίους ἐχρῶντο which 
reminds the reader of the passage in the first war, where the con- 
tending armies indulge in mutual abuse (c. 8, 2) ‘i ἔς Te λοιδορίας 


προήγοντο, κ. τ. Χ. The great expectations of the M 
essen 
thus dashed to the ground by one aetna 


3 


blow. Λακεδαιμονίων δεσπότας 








38 A Study in the Sources of 


fact 
ἀντὶ δούλων ἔσεσθαι νομίζοντας. It was not owing εὐ ἐν - 
that the Messenians had already been slaves that ἀντὶ a 
used, for as already mentioned, these accounts of ἫΝ ite sh 
imes ; an 
the point of view of later : 
nian wars were written from ἘΜ ΤΕΒΕΣ ΨΩ 
ἱ f the first war (c. 8, 2), the Lac 
moreover, in the account 0 ee τ: = 
: οἱ μὲν οἰκέτας αὑτῶν ἤδη τοὺς Μεσση 
nians are made to say: οἱ μὲν οἰκέτας ὧν ἤδη τ 
καὶ οὐδὲν ἐλευθερωτέρους ἀποκαλοῦντες τῶν aoe sew . 
i he Messenians had a far bette 
accounts in Pausanias go, t 
rae to become the masters of the Spartans in the early part 
iod of the second. 

f the first war than at any perio 
: Now the account of this battle would fill a palpable gap in Pau 
sanias (c. 9,1). We read in c. 8 of such a gallant struggle being 
made by the Messenians that they seemed in a fair way “ — 
out of the war victorious. Notwithstanding all this, τ t aah 

i I ddenly takes an evil turn, for whic 
lowing chapter everything su ute Pg 
ion is offered. ‘The principal reason alleg 
adequate explanation is 0 red. 
for ἐν μεσ turn of affairs is that the Messenians had 4 
spend large sums in guarding the different towns ; and se in 6. ss 
go are told that the Lacedaemonians, having found them mei : 
fortified had given up their attacks upon them. The story ᾿- ek 
inasiahiens of Aristocrates would give a sufficient explanation of thi 
dden change of fortune. 
‘ Finally Pi passage in the account of the second Sc ae = 
ians to Mt. Eira, bears a striking 

f the retreat of the Messenians 
estinee Pv to the one in the account of the first war, that tells af 
the retreat to Mt. Ithome (c. 17, 10): ’ Ἀριστομένης δὲ ne 

άχην τοὺς διαπεφευγότας τῶν Μεσσηνίων συνήθροιξε, καὶ = 
μοι μὲν καὶ εἴ τι ἄλλο ἐν μεσογαίᾳ πόλισμα ar Ἐ πολλὰ 
ἐς δὲ τὴν Εἰ mn) ἰνοικίζεσθαι ; wit is com- 

ἐκλείπειν, ἐς δὲ τὴν Kipay τὸ ὄρος ἄνοιι , ith ἕω 

a c. 9,1: βουλευομένοις δὲ πρὸς τὰ παρόντα ἐδόκει. τὰ μὲν 
aaa woken τὰ ἐς μεσόγαιαν πάντα ἐκλείπειν, ἐς δὲ τὸ ὄρος 


ανοικίζεσθαι τὴν ᾿Ιθώμην. 


ὃ). The Allies. 


Let us now examine the allies who are mentioned by Pausanias. 
If we should follow the statement in Strabo, 362 (of which passage 
O. Miiller, Dorier, I, 149, 3, says: “Es ist deutlich dass dieses 

. ’ 





The Messeniaca of Pausanias. 39 


alles aus Tyrtaeus ist ”), we should conclude that in the first war 
the Messenians had no allies, but in the second were assisted by 
the Argives, Eleans, Pisatans and Arcadians. How is it then that 
in Pausanias’ account such an important part is played by the allies 
in the first war? The reason is, in my opinion, that Myron, in 
the case of the allies too, combined the traditions concerning the 
second war with those of the first. But if the names that Strabo 
gives of the allies are the traditional ones, we might expect Myron 
to have the same. Yet an exact correspondence with Strabo need 
not be looked for here, and we notice in Pausanias that Sicyonians 
take the place of the Pisatans. At the same time it must be 
remarked that the names mentioned by Strabo are not altogether 
certain (cf. Busolt, Gr. Gesch., I, 165, 1; O. Miller, Dorier, I, 
149, 3). 

The handiwork of Myron may be recognized in the amount of 
detail given concerning the allies in the first war, which stands in 
sharp contrast with the scanty notice of allies in Strabo, and with 
the fact that Thucydides, I, 15, knows of no wars in early times 
in which there was a general participation of different states, 

If now we turn to the second war we find nearly the same allies 
taking part as in the first. ‘This is not because Pausanias depended 
in this part on Ephorus or some other source, but because Pausa- 
nias, in reconstructing the gap, introduced the same allies that he 
found in Myron’s history. Busolt, Gr. Gesch., I, 165, 1, seems to 
recognize this when he says: “ Was Pausanias, IV, 15, 7, tiber die 
beiderseitigen Bundesgenossen sagt, hat keinen Wert.” Vel. Busolt, 
Lakedaim., I, 101, 48. “Es ist eine freie Komposition der die 
politische Gruppierung im Jahre 418 zum Vorbilde diente.” This 
remark, according to the generally accepted notion of the extent of 
Myron’s history, ought to have been applied only to the allies 
mentioned in the first war (cf. p. 13). No doubt Pausanias knew 
from Ephorus that some of these allies had assisted the Messenians 
in the second war, but from lack of detail he was obliged to have 

recourse to Myron, in which he seemed justified, as Myron had 
evidently taken other features of the second war along with the 
stories about Aristomenes into his account. 
A close examination will show that the allies are more intimately 
interwoven with the events of the first war than with those of the 


{— 





40 A Study in the Sources of 


second, and that the passages in which they are cited in the second 
war were all, or nearly so, merely imitations of those in the first. 
This demonstrates again that Pausanias was not following here a 
connected account, but was piecing together parts from different 
sources. I shall content myself with merely mentioning the pas- 
sages where allies are referred to in the first war (7. 6., cc. 8,3; 10, 
11 1.6; 10, 75:33, 15-3 23 By T3411, 8; 12,33 143) 
The passages where they are spoken of in the account of the 


second war are: cc. 14,8; 15,1; 15,4; 15,7; 15,8; 16,2; 17, . 


9; 19,1; 23,5. In the first of these (c. 14, 8) we are told that 
Aristomenes sent secretly to Argos and Arcadia to ask whether they 
would assist the Messenians as readily as they had done in the first 
war. This cannot be from Rhianus, who probably had nothing or 
next to nothing about allies, and no one besides Pausanias and 
Myron could have known of any such help being given the Messe- 
nians in the first war. Now we read in the account of the first war 
(c. 12, 3) that, when the Lacedaemonians had sent embassies to 
these very Arcadians and Argives in order to win them from their 
alliance with the Messenians, Aristodemus sent an embassy not to 
these states to counteract the influence of the Spartans, but to the 
oracle—Pausanias’ words being: πέμπει καὶ αὐτὸς ἐρησομένους 
τὸν θεόν, which is an indication of an omission at this point, as the 
sending to the oracle has clearly nothing to do with the attempt of 
the Spartans to break up the alliance, and it is to be noted that 
there is no further reference made to this embassy. Bearing in 
mind that Aristomenes had been omitted from Myron’s history, it 
seems likely that his sending secretly to Argos and Arcadia (c. 14, 
8) was transferred by Pausanias from its original connection in 
c. 12,3. The only change necessary to make c. 14, 8 fit in here 
is that of ἐπὶ τοῦ πολέμου τοῦ προτέρου to ἐπὶ τῆς μάχης τῆς 
προτέρας (i. 6., the battle described in ο. 11). 

Again, in c. 15, 1 we are told that the allies were more eager for 
war than had been expected, and that the hate of the Argives and 
Arcadians was intense. This seems however to be an idle asser- 
tion, for the allies do not come until nearly two years later. So 
again, in c. 15, 4, they are mentioned, but only to say that they 
were not present at the battle of Derae. .The mention of the hatred 
of the Argives and Arcadians in the above passage (c. 15, 1) 





The Messeniaca of Pausanias. 4] 


reminds us of the passage (c. 10, 7) in the account of the first war 
where the hostile acts of the Arcadians and the enmity of the 
Argives are spoken of. Likewise the absence of the allies men- 
tioned in 6, 15, 4, may be compared with a similar absence spoken 
ofine. 10,1. It is noteworthy that in the second war, as in the ° 
first, the allies do not participate until the war has made one pro- 
gress ; but notice is taken of them in both accounts more than once 
before the descriptions are given of the two battles in which they 
figure. These battles then seem to be of corresponding magnitude 

Before describing these battles the allies on both sides are enamer- 
ated, which passages in the two accounts (c. 11 and ο, 15 7-8) bear 
a striking resemblance to each other. <A comparison, however, 
will show that in the first war the allies form an jittepral part of 
the army ; in the second their position in the line of battle is not 
even mentioned, and the talk about the allies seems to be only a 
rough setting for the recital of Aristomenes’ deeds of valor. 

It is curious to see in ¢. 15, 7, how the catalogue of allies was 
made to swell. In the first place there came to the assistance of 
the Messenians the Eleans, Arcadians, Argives and Sicyonians. Of 
these the Eleans befriended the Messenians at the end of the ΜΈΣΗΣ 
war (c. 23, 5), which Pausanias knew from Rhianus (ef. also ο. 17 
7, and C. V, 6, end); but the Arcadians, Argives and Sievontans 
are mentioned together in ce. 10, 6, 11,1, and 11, 2, each time in 
this order, and once ine. 14, 1, in the opposite order. In the latter 
place we learn that the fugitive Messenians seek refuge with them 

It is also worth noticing that it is stated in the account of the 
second war (c. 14, 8) that Aristomenes sent only to Argos and 
Arcadia for assistance, and yet the Sicyonians also come, which 
reminds one of the passage (c. 10, 6) in the account of the first 
war, where we learn that Aristodemus had sent presents to all three 
states. All of which shows that Pausanias drew on Myron in his 
efforts to construct the first part of the second Messenian war 

In c. 15, 8, the Corinthians and Lepreates are mentioned - the 
allies of the Spartans. It is safe to say that the connection that 
these states are represented as having had with the early Messenian 
wars also lacks all historical basis. Ο. Miller, Dorier, I, 144, 6 
commenting on the unhistorical nature of some of the ciao 
made in Pausanias concerning these wars, says: ‘“ Wie kamen 

















42 A Study in the Sources of 


Korinther nach Lakonien, ohne durch feindliches Gebiet zu gehen, 
und wer hatte sie durchgelassen ” (cf. Paus., c. 11, 8). Now the 
Corinthians are mentioned several times as allies of the Spartans in 
the account of the first war (i. 6., c. 11, 1, bis, and ο. 11, 8), and it 
* is easy to see that those passages are fhore closely connected with 
the narrative than the one under discussion (i. ¢., c. 15, 8). A place 
in the line of battle is assigned to them (ce. 11, 1), and the difficulty 
of their return home after the defeat is commented on. Whereas, 
in c. 15, 8 their presence is simply mentioned, and nothing is said of 
their position in the line of battle, nor is any concern expressed about 
their returning home safely, although the Spartans were defeated 
at the battle of Capron Sema, just as they had been before Ithome, 
and the Corinthians were therefore in the same situation here as there. 
The Corinthians are also mentioned once as the allies of the 
Spartans in the Rhianus part (c. 19, 1); but evidently they form 
no vital part of Rhianus’ epic, as he describes a siege, and it does 
not appear anywhere that the Spartans found any difficulty in sus- 
taining it. Moreover, the Corinthians do not appear to form a 
necessary part of this exploit of Aristomenes, because Polyaenus in 
II, 31, tells the same story essentially without the Corinthians. 
Besides Pausanias (c. 18, 5) was acquainted with two versions of 
this story (cf. Immerwahr, Lakonika, 171), and it is to be expected 
that Myron had also told this story. If so, we recognize the source 
for the general remark in c. 18,4: és τὸν Keddav " ἐμβάλλουσι δὲ 
ἐνταῦθα οὕς ἂν ἐπὶ μεγίστοις τιμωρῶνται, for in Thuc., I, 134, 4, we 
read: καὶ αὐτὸν ἐμέλλησαν μὲν ἐς τὸν Καιάδαν οὗπερ τοὺς κακού- 
ργους ἐμβάλλειν. Polyaenus does not mention the place at all. 
Of the Lepreates no mention is made in the account of the first 
war. It is stated there (c. 11, 1) that the Corinthians were the 
only ones of the Peloponnesians who came to the assistance of ‘the 
Spartans. But it also appears that the assistance the Lepreates are 
said to render the Spartans in the second war is in conflict with 
c. 24, 1; for there we are told that Aristomenes gave one of his 
daughters in marriage to a Lepreat (cf. O. Miiller, Dorier, I, 151, 
4). Now we read in III, 8, 3-6, that the Lacedaemonians took 
the part of the Lepreates against the Eleans, of which the words 
(c. 15, 8), καὶ Λεπρεατῶν τινες κατὰ ἔχθος τὸ ᾿Ηλείων are evi- 
dently a reminiscence. It therefore seems likely that Pausanias, 





The Messeniaca of Pausunias. 43 


on his own authority, thought it proper to introduce them here as 
allies of the Spartans. | 

The enumeration of the allies who came to the battle of Capron 
Sema (c. 15, 7) includes also the descendants of the Messenian king 
Androcles. These are mentioned again in ὁ. 16, 2 and c. 17, 9). 
It is not clear on what source Pausanias relied in this instance, but 
it is possible that the notice of them was taken with other matter 
from Myron. At any rate they seem to have figured in Myron’s 
account to some extent (cf. cc. 4, 4; 5,6; 14, 3). 

Very noticeable is the close correspondence between the passages 
c. 14, 1 and c. 15, 7—the former telling of the exile of the Messe- 
nians at the end of the first war, the latter of the return of the ex} les, 
as follows (c. 14, 1): Μεσσηνίων δὲ ὅσοις μὲν ἔτυχον ἐν Σικυῶνι 
οὖσαι καὶ év”Apyer προξενίαι καὶ παρὰ τῶν ᾿Αρκάδων τισίν, οὗτοι 
μὲν ἐς ταύτας τὰς πόλεις ἀπεχώρησαν, ἐς "EXevciva δὲ οἱ τοῦ 
γένους τῶν ἱερέων καὶ Θεαῖς ταῖς μεγάλαις τελοῦντες τὰ ὄργια. 
ὁ δὲ ὄχλος ὁ πολὺς κατὰ τὰς πατρίδας ἕκαστοι τὰς ἀρχαίας ἐσκε- 
δάσθησαν, and 15,7: ἡκόντων ἀμφοτέροις καὶ τῶν συμμάχων, 
εν. Μεσσηνίοις μὲν οὖν ᾿Ηλεῖοι καὶ ᾿Αρκάδες, ἔτι δὲ ἐξ "Ἄργους 
ἀφίκετο καὶ Σικυῶνος βοήθεια. παρῆσαν δὲ καὶ ὅσοι πρότερον 
τῶν Μεσσηνίων ἔφευγον ἑκουσίως, ἐξ ᾿Ἐλευσῖνός τε οἷς πάτριον 
δρᾶν τὰ ὄργια τῶν μεγάλων Θεῶν, κ. τ r. Not only is the 
correspondence between these two passages noteworthy, but this 
attempt to join the second war to the first seems hasty, for who 
would believe that the same men participated in two wars that 
were separated by an interval of thirty-nine years, especially as 
the first one had lasted twenty years! Concerning the flight of the 
priests to Eleusis, Ὁ. Miller, Dorier, I, 144, 6, says: “ Die Flucht 
der Eingeweihten nach Eleusis ist ganz ungeschichtlich gedacht ; 
noch mehr dass sie im zweiten Kriege ruhig zusehen. Kampften 
doch in Athen selbst Daduchen in Reih und Glied.” This bit of 
improbability agrees with Myron’s style of romancing, 


d). Tyrtaeus. 


From whom did Pausanias take his information about Tyr- 
taeus? Duncker, VI, 106, says that the story about the lame 
school-master whom the Athenians sent to the Spartans in de- 





44 | A Study in the Sources of 


rision, which is most completely developed in Pausanias, is of 
very late origin. Tyrtaeus is mentioned four times as an active 
participant in the second Messenian war (cf. cc. 15,6; 16,2; 16,6; 
18, 3): three times in that part which was made up by Pausanias, 
and once (c. 18, 3) in the part where Rhianus was his chief source. 
But even here I have no doubt that it was inserted, since, as in 
the previous passages, Tyrtaeus is barely mentioned, and only 
enough to bring in some bit of well-known tradition. It is my 
opinion that Tyrtaeus was included in Myron’s history just as 
Aristomenes was. 

That late tradition did actually place Tyrtaeus in the first war 
we learn from Suidas (s. v. Tyrtaeus): Τυρταῖος ὅτι Λακεδαιμόνιοι 
ὥμοσαν ἢ Μεσσήνην αἱρήσειν ἢ αὐτοὶ τεθνήξεσθαι . χρήσαντος δὲ 
τοῦ θεοῦ στρατηγὸν παρὰ Αθηναίων λαβεῖν, λαμβάνουσι Τυρταῖον 
τὸν ποιητήν, χωλὸν ἄνδρα " ὃς ἐπ᾽ ἀρετὴν αὐτοὺς παρακαλῶν εἷλε 
TOK ἔτει τὴν Μεσσήνην, κι τ. λ. The oath as well as the numeral 
show that the first war is meant. Now in Paus., c. 15,6, where 
we learn that the Lacedaemonians, in obedience to the oracle 
applied to the Athenians for a leader, we read the following: 
᾿Αθηναῖοι δὲ οὐδέτερα θέλοντες, οὔτε Λακεδαιμονίους ἄνευ μεγάλων 
κινδύνων προσλαβεῖν μοῖραν τῶν ἐν Πελοποννήσῳ τὴν ἀρίστην, 
οὔτε x.T.X. I have shown above that Myron brought out very 
prominently the desire of the Spartans to get the Messenian land, 
with which προσλαβεῖν μοῖραν above agrees. Besides, this would 
have been suitably said in the first war, before the Lacedaemonians 
had got possession of Messenia, but not after they had held it for 
thirty-nine years. 

Again, one of the measures that Tyrtaeus proposed in order to 
strengthen the Spartan cause was to take Helots into the army (ef. 
Paus., c. 16,6; Justin., III, 5); but we find these assisting already 
in the first war (6. 11, 1), and there a marked progress may be 
observed, for whereas, in c. 8, 3 we read only of Periveci assisting 
the Lacedaemonians, in c. 11, 1 we find Perioeci and Helots. 


It appears from the foregoing discussion concerning the chapters 
14-17 (which constitute the beginning of the account of the second 
war) that, as Myron’s history ostensibly dealt only with the first 


: The Messeniaca of Pausanias. 45 
war, and Rhianus’ epic with the latter part of the second, Pausanias 
had to turn elsewhere for material. An outline he may have found 
in Ephorus and Sosibius ; but this was probably too bare to be in 
keeping with the preceding story of the first war, and the part of 
the second war which Rhiamts treated. Now as Pausanias knew 
that Myron had included in his history not only the stories about 
Aristomenes, but also other matter, he decided to utilize this mate- 
rial. The various considerations that have been advanced , and the 
close relationship which appears to exist between the part under 
discussion and the account of the first war, make this hypothesis 
very probable. 

Let us pause for a moment to review the investigation into 
Pausanias’ indebtedness to Myron’s history, as far as it has been 
made. I began with the generally accepted view that Myron had 
written the history of the first war from the taking of Ampheia 
down to the death of Aristodemus. Starting from this point, it 
was shown that his history had begun with an introduction ; that 
it had not only related the events of the war to its close, but had 
told of the exile of the Messenians, and finally that Myron’s history 
had virtually extended into the territory of the second war, inas- 
much as tradition that pertained to the second war had been 
included. So far, then, the investigation has considered Myron’s 
history as simply dealing with the first war, although in a larger 
sense than is generally supposed. Now the attempt will be made 
to prove that Myron had not stopped here, but had continued with 
the recital of the later doings of the Messenians, and especially 
had shown how they had been finally restored to their country by 
Epaminondas. 


VI. ConsIDERATION oF PossIBLE SOURCES FOR THE ACCOUNT 
OF THE RESTORATION. 


a). It was not constructed by Pausanias from Fragments. 


It must be evident from the foregoing discussion that Myron 
and Rhianus were the principal sources that Pausanias used when 
writing the history of the first two Messenian wars. The question 
now arises, where did Pausanias get his material for the subsequent 





46 A Study in the Sources of 


history? We must accept one of three propositions : Firstly, Pau- 
sanias worked up the account of the restoration from fragments of 
tradition ; secondly, he adapted an account of the restoration which 
was complete in itself; thirdly, he had access to some history of 
the Messenian wars which included the story of the restoration. 
The objection to the first proposition is, that Pausanias would 
never have produced an harmonious narrative, such as we now 
find, from raw material handed down by tradition. This can be 
seen by examining the last two chapters of the historical part of 
the Messeniaca (i. e., cc. 28 and 29). These two chapters, which 
sketch the history of the Messenians subsequent to the restoration, 
ἧς 6.) from 370 B. C. to 183 B. C., bear unmistakable signs of 
having been composed by Pausanias himself. He refers to his 
Attica in ο. 28, 3; to his Sicyonia in c. 29,1; and if we compare 
these chapters with I, 13, 6; II, 9,2; VII, 7,4; VIII, 49,4; 
50, 2; 50, 5, it will be easy to see that they were not originally 
written by Pausanias to be Messenian history ; in fact, the part 
from c. 29, 6 to c. 29, 18 is largely a condensation of that part of 
his Arcadian history in which Philopoemen figures. : 
There is no doubt then that Pausanias himself is responsible for 
the composition of these two chapters. But how different they are 
from the part that precedes! As the reader turns to these chapters 
he finds the Messenians fade, as it were, into the distance. Twice 
they draw near again—once when an expedition is made by 
them against Elis (c. 28), and again when they are attacked by 
Demetrius (c. 29). But as these anecdotes, which are evidently 
taken from some Messenian source, are not brought into organic 
unity with the rest, it becomes evident that Pausanias could not 
have produced an harmonious account of the restoration if he had 
depended on fragments of tradition. Myron and Rhianus wove 
their fragments together by drawing on their imagination. Pausa- 
_ nias, in his capacity as compiler, turned to his sources, and hence 
could not be expected to attain the same unity of composition. 
Besides this it is very noticeable that the intense Messenian bias 
so prominent in the previous part of the history is lacking in the 
above named chapters. Pausanias himself evidently favored the 
Lacedaemonians as much as the Messenians, for he not only de- 
voted a book to Laconia, in which there is no evidence of a feeling 





The Messeniaca of Pausanias. 47 


against them, but he shows a special interest in Theopompus, the 
Spartan king who reigned at the time of the first Messenian war 
(cf. Immerwahr, Lakonika, 20, and Paus., III, 3, 2), and speaks 
of the merits of Polydorus, the other king, in III, 3, 2-3. More- 
over, as already mentioned, he assumes an impartial attitude, which 
is in striking contrast with the one-sided Messenian version (cf. 
III, 3,2; IV, 4,3; 5,5). If, on the other hand, Pausanias had 
acquired a strong Messenian sympathy from his Messenian sources, 
we should expect him to continue in this frame of mind to the end 
of this history; but such is not the case. If it were not for the 
expedition against Elis in c. 28 and the attack of Demetrius in ¢, 
29, in both of which chapters the Messenians are represented as 
endowed with their former valor, our feelings would be turned 
against them. This darker picture of the Messenian character is 
no doubt truer to history, and agrees with the estimate put upon it 
by Polybius (IV, 32). Accordingly, in c. 28, 2, we read that they 
became the allies of Philip, the son of Amyntas, for which reason 
they took no part in the battle of Chaeroneia. But such an alliance 
ought to have appeared especially reprehensible to Pausanias, who 
censures Philip severely in I, 25,3, and in VIII, 7,5, and soon 
after mentioning the alliance, says (c. 28,4): Φιλίππου δὲ τοῦ 
᾿Αμύντου τά τε ἄλλα ὁπόσα εἴρηται κακουργήσαντος τὴν Ἑλλάδα, 
καὶ ᾿Ηλείων τοὺς δυνατοὺς διαφθείραντος χρήμασι. It was just 
such a charge that the Messenians had brought against the Lace- 
daemonians in c. 5,3: Κρόισῳ τε αὐτοῖς δῶρα ἀποστείλαντι yevé- 
Goat φίλους βαρβάρῳ πρώτους, x. τ. Δ. (see also p. 15). For the 
alliance with Philip Pausanias makes no excuse, unless we may 
consider as an excuse his explanation of the non-appearance of the 
Messenians at Chaeroneia, with the words (c. 28,3): οὐ μὴν οὐδὲ 
τοῖς “Ἕλλησιν ἐναντία θέσθαι τὰ ὅπλα ἠθέλησαν. Again, in the 
case of Philopoemen, for whom Pausanias must have felt an interest, 
to judge from the account of his life in VIII, to which he refers, 
there is the same failure to appreciate the discredit that the Messe- 
nians had brought upon themselves. He simply says (c. 29, 12): 
Μεσσηνίων δὲ οἵ τε Φιλοποίμενι αἴτιοι THs τελευτῆς ἔδοσαν δίκας, 
καὶ ἡ Μεσσήνη συνετέλεσεν αὖθις ἐς τὸ ᾿Αχαϊκόν. The lack of 
sympathy for the Messenians that is apparent in these chapters, 
which were undoubtedly constructed by Pausanias, and the want 





48 A Study in the Sources of 


of unity of composition, show that the previous chapters must 
have been derived from some complete account. This opinion is 
strengthened by the evidence given above, which proves that some 
particular source of Pausanias must have ceased suddenly to flow 
when the story of the restoration had been told. 


δ). The Story of the Restoration jomed to an Account of the 
Previous History. 


According to the second proposition Pausanias would have used 
as a source some complete account of the restoration, but one inde- 
pendent of the earlier history. But surely if anyone had written 
of the restoration he would not have neglected to bring it into 
connection with the wars which had effected the banishment. In 
fact, it may be urged against both the foregoing propositions that 
it would be highly improbable for no one before Pausanias’ time 
to have brought the story of the restoration into connection with 
the early wars. At the period of the restoration, or, at least, at a 
time not so far remote as that of Pausanias, who lived in the 
second century A. D., would it be natural to look for an unusual 
interest to manifest itself in the fortunes of the Messenians, an 
interest such as produced the works of Myron, Rhianus and Aes- 
chylus of Alexandria. , 

Now there is clear evidence that the restoration had been joined 
to the earlier history in the source which Pausanias used. For 
chapter 25, which is totally the work of the imagination, was un- 
doubtedly written for the purpose of bridging over the gap between 
the history of the wars and the account of the restoration, and we 
can also see a close relation existing between the beginning of the 
Messeniaca and the account of the restoration. For evidence in 
regard to c. 25, seec. VIII, 6. As to the latter proposition, the 
following comparison between the above-named parts of the Messe- 
niaca will show that it is true. 

Especial prominence is given in the Messeniaca to the rites per- 
formed in honor of the Great Goddesses. Pausanias (c. 33, 4) says 
he considers them, performed at Carnasium, only next in majesty 
to the Eleusinian mysteries. Soon after the occupation of Messenia 
by Polycaon the rites of the Great Goddesses, as we are told, were 





The Messeniaca of Pausanias. 49 


brought from Eleusis to Andania by Caucon and revealed there to 
Messene, the wife of Polycaon. Many years later these rites were 
raised to greater honor by Lycus, the son of Pandion. These 
matters are spoken of as important events, and are discussed in five 
consecutive paragraphs. The presence of these religious ceremonies 
gave to Andania a special importance. Next to Andania the town 
Oichalia, known later by the name Carnasium, is spoken of as a 
place. famous for its worship of the Great Goddesses. Besides 
Caucon, Lycus and Messene, the names of Eurytus, Apharaeus 
and his sons are mentioned in connection with these rites. It was 
to Aphareus, the son of Perieres, and his children, that Lycus 
revealed the rites at Andania. 

Now in the account of the restoration the same degree of import- 
ance is attached both to the rites of the Great Goddesses and to the 
places and heroes that are associated with them in the introduction, 
So it is stated in ο. 26, 6, that when Epaminondas wanted to build 
a town for the Messenians, they positively refused to rebuild either 
Andania or Oichalia, as their calamities had come upon them while 
living there. The joining of the name Oichalia with Andania was 
evidently made on account of the fact that the celebration of the 
mysteries was also connected with this place ; for otherwise Arene, 
Pylus or Stenyclarus should have been mentioned instead, as they 
had been in the early times successively the seats of government 
after Andania. While Epaminondas was in doubt, in consequence 
of the above-mentioned refusal, where to build the city, a vision of 
the priest Caucon appeared to him, commanding him to restore to 
the Messenians their land. The same vision appeared also to 
Epiteles, who commanded the Argive contingent of forces, telling 
him to dig at a certain place on Mt. Ithome. He obeyed, and 
found a roll of tin finely wrought, on which were inscribed the 
rites of the Great Goddesses. In consequence of these events 
Kpaminondas decided to found a city on Mt. Ithome, and the 
priests inscribed in books the rites that had been discovered. 

Then, before beginning work on the city, sacrifices were offered 
by all the parties engaged, but especially by the Messenians, who, 
together with their priests, offered sacrifices to Zeus Ithomatas, the 
Dioscuri, the Great Goddesses, Caucon, Messene, Eurytus, Aphareus 
and his sons, Cresphontes Aipytus and Aristomenes. Here it 








50 A Study in the Sources of 


should be noted that not only are the Great Goddesses and the 
names that are associated with their rites mentioned, but also that 
the other divinities and heroes to whom sacrifices are offered play 
an important role in the introduction, as well as in the account of 
the wars. A connection with the body of the history is also 
observable. The priests of the Great Goddesses are mentioned in 
00. 14, 1 and 15, 7, and their rites in ο. 20 (see c. VI, ὁ, end). For 
the frequent mention of Zeus Ithomatas see c. VII, a, ff., and of 
the Dioscuri ce. VII, ὁ, ff. Aristomenes, of course, plays an im- 
portant role in the second war, and it may be remarked that in ὁ. 
17, 1 he owes his life to a priestess of Demeter. There can be no 
doubt then that Pausanias made use of some source in which the 
restoration was already in organic unity with the earlier as well as 
the later history. 

Further evidence can be seen in a passage that was pointed out 
by Kohlmann, op. cit., 21. We have already seen how Pausanias, 
after telling of the restoration of the Messenians to their country, 
proceeds in cc. 28 and 29 to give a sketch of the later history, 
down to the year 183 B.C. He then concludes the historical part 
of the Messeniaca with these words (c. 29, 18): Ἴλχρι μὲν δὴ τοῦδε 
ὁ λόγος ἐπῆλθέ μοι Μεσσηνίων τὰ πολλὰ παθήματα, καὶ ὡς ὁ 
δαίμων σφᾶς ἐπί τε γῆς τὰ ἔσχατα καὶ ἐπὶ τὰ πορρώτατα Πελο- 
ποννήσου σκεδάσας ὕστερον χρόνῳ καὶ ἐς τὴν οἰκείαν ἀνέσωσε" 
τὸ δὲ ἀπὸ τούτου τῆς χώρας καὶ πόλεων τραπώμεθα ἐς ἀφήγησιν. 
This passage clearly indicates that some source that Pausanias used 
ended with the account of the restoration, for. if Pausanias had 
been responsible for the construction of all the later history, he 
would not have overlooked what he had related in cc. 28 and 29. 

If the reasoning so far has been correct, it follows that either 
Rhianus or Myron furnished Pausanias with material for writing 
the account of the restoration. A third source might of course be 
thought of ; but as it has been shown that the account of the resto- 
ration must have been attached to a history of the wars, such a 
third source would have been more important to Pausanias than 
either Myron or Rhianus. Yet Pausanias (c. 6), when discussing 
the relative trustworthiness of Myron and Rhianus, has nothing to 
say of a third source. Furthermore, it has been well substantiated 
that Myron and Rhianus were the chief sources for the history of 














The Messeniaca of Pausanias. 51 


the wars, and it is therefore more natural to look to them for an 
account of the restoration than to assume some unknown source. 
This view is supported by the fact that so many points in the 
account of the restoration are closely connected with those parts 
which have recognizedly been taken from Myron and Rhianus. 
One of the best examples of this is the story of the roll of tin on 
which the rites of the Great Goddesses had been inscribed; which 
Epiteles found on Mt. Ithome, and which had been deposited there 
by Aristomenes. The circumstances concerning this deposit, told 
in c. 20, and again in c. 26, stand in such intimate relation that it 
is impossible that Pausanias could have obtained them from two 
distinct sources. But c. 20 belongs to that part of the account of 
the second war which presumably was taken from Rhianus. If 
then this. circumstance owes its origin to Rhianus, it follows that 
he was also the author of the account of the restoration. But 
weighty reasons show that this cannot be true. 


6). Rhianus. 


Kohlmann, op. cit., tried to prove by pointing out correspond- 
ences between the account of the restoration and the history of the 
second war, that Rhianus had not closed his epic with the death of 
Aristodemus, as was generally supposed (cf. O. Miller, Dorier, I, 
152,3; Meineke, Analecta Alexandrina, 197), but had extended 
his poem so as to include the story of the restoration of the Messe- 
nians to their country by Epaminondas. Busolt, Gr. Gesch., I, 
136, 5, says that Conat, Les Messéniennes de Rhianus, Annales de 
la faculté de Lettres de Bordeaux, II (1880), 377 sqq.,' has at least 
severely shaken this hypothesis. Conat, Poésie Alex., 338, in giv- 
ing his reasons against Kohlmann’s hypothesis, closes with the 
objection that an account of the restoration would be a natural 
termination of a detailed account of the two wars: not of a poem 
devoted to the glorification of a single man like Aristomenes, and 
practically confined to the siege of Eira. 

The almost exclusive attention that is paid to Aristomenes in 
the account of the second war is very striking. Nearly all the 


1 Unfortunately I have been unable to see this article. 








52 A Study in the Sources of 


fighting consists in personal encounters between Aristomenes and 
the Spartans. The oracle predicting the fall of Eira is known only 
to Aristomenes and to the priest Theoclus, who keep the informa- 
tion to themselves (cf. cc. 20,3; 21, 3). In the first war, on the 
contrary, all the Messenians are represented as taking part in the 
fighting and are familiar with the oracles. 

The national hatred between Messenians and Spartans was intense 
in the first war, as can he seen by examining the following passages : 
cc. 4,4; 7,3; 7,5; 8,1; 8,7; 11,5; 11,6; 13,5; which har- 
monize in sentiment with cc. 5, 3-5; 8, 2; 17, 3-6. This last 
passage belonged to Myron, as was shown p. 37. On the other 
hand, we are informed in the account of the second war only of the 
feelings of Aristomenes and of the priest Theoclus (cf. 16,5; 22, 
3; 21,11; 23,2). The passage (c. 15, 1) where the hatred of the 
Argives and Arcadians is mentioned, has been shown above (p. 40) 
to be due to Pausanias. Still there is one passage (7. 6., c. 23, 5) 
at the close of the story of the second war, where the hatred of the 
Messenian people is mentioned. It must be observed, however, 
that this is done in a relenting spirit, with which compare c. 21, 12, 
where the Spartans seem to relent. 

We seem to be reading there the final act concerning the fortunes 
of the Messenians as Rhianus had related them. At other times 
the Messenian exiles scattered themselves in different directions. 
So it was at the end of the first war, and after they were driven 
from Naupactus, 405 B. C.; but after the second war, we are told, 
there was one grand exodus (c. 23, 3): καὶ μετέσχον ἅπαντες, 
πλὴν εἰ γῆράς τινα ἀπεῖργεν. ἢ μηδὲ εὐπορῶν ἔτυχεν ἐς τὴν ἀπο- 
δημίαν. It was, then, in accordance with this final act that Man- 
ticlus is made to tell the Messenians to forget Messene and their 
hatred of the Lacedaemonians (e. 23, δ). 

Then we are treated to a fictitious account of how, on the invita- 
tion of Anaxilas, whom we know to have lived in the fifth century 
B.C. (cf. Bently, Dissertat. wpon Phal., 190 sqq.), they attack 
Zancle and with his help take possession of it ; whereupon they 
show clemency to the conquered and make a treaty with them, and 
change the name of the town to Messene (c. 23, 9). This seems a 
fitting close to the history of the unfortunate Messenians, who 
have now found a final resting-place, which is marked by the last 





The Messeniaca of Pausanias. 53 


words of the chapter (c. 23, 10): Μεσσηνίοις μὲν οὖν τοῖς φεύ- 
γουσιν ἐγεγόνει πέρας τῆς ἄλης. 

Having thus closed his account of the Messenians, Rhianus re- 
turns to Aristomenes to tell of his last days—how the hero gives 
his daughters and a sister in marriage and goes to live with a 
third daughter who married Damagetus, a king on the island of 
Rhodus, where he ends his days. Pausanias closes his account of 
him with the words (c. 24,3): οὐ γὰρ ἔδει συμφορὰν οὐδεμίαν 
Λακεδαιμονίοις ἔτι ἐξ ᾿Αριστομένους γενέσθαι, which words, as 
Conat has pointed out, show that Rhianus had now come to the 
end of his story. It must be evident that, as Rhianus’ interest was 
centered in Aristomenes (cf. c. 6,3: “Ῥιανῷ δὲ ἐν τοῖς ἔπεσιν οὐδὲν 
᾿Αριστομένης ἐστὶν ἀφανέστερος ἢ ᾿Αχιλλεύς ἐν Ἰλιάδι ‘Ounpo), 
he should have had no motive to tell of the later fortunes of the 
Messenian people after the death of his hero. As the account 
stands in Pausanias it looks very much like the close of a story. 


The above considerations show that Rhianus did not write of 
the restoration. How, then, could he have written (c. 20) about 
the deposit on Mt. Ithome of the roll containing the sacred rites, 
which is closely connected with the same? A negative answer is 
supported by the following considerations: If Rhianus had told 
this story, it would have been strange that Ithome and not Eira 
should have been the spot chosen where to bury the roll, for Eira 
and not Ithome was the stronghold of the Messenians in the second 
war. Besides, as Eira was closely besieged, the future of Messenia 
would have been jeoparded by attempting to pass through the lines, 
a difficulty which is not adverted to. Again, the close intimacy 
existing between Theoclus and Aristomenes, who share the knowl- 
edge of the oracle which prophesied the coming destruction and 
who are elsewhere brought into close relation with each other, and 
the fact that Theoclus is priest, ought to have made him participate 
in that religious act of Aristomenes ; but no one besides Aristo- 
menes knows anything about it. Moreover, the fact that the rites 
of the Great Goddesses are in question ; that Lykus, the son of 
Pandion, is mentioned, and that Aristomenes prays to Zeus Itho- 


matas, indicates that this episode is connected with the mythologi- 
4 





54 A Study in the Sources of 


cal period of the Messenian history, and at the same time with the 
restoration, thus reaching far beyond the limits of Rhianus’ epic. 

On the other hand, we know that Myron had included the deeds 
of Aristomenes in his history, and that Ithome was the place where 
the Messenians resisted the attacks of the Spartans in the first war ; 
and it would, therefore, have been easy and natural, according to 
Myron’s account, for Aristomenes to bury the roll of tin there. But 
if the passage under discussion was included in Myron’s history, it 
furnishes a clear proof that Myron had also written of the restoration. 


VIl. Myron’s History Propasty INCLUDED AN ACCOUNT 
OF THE RESTORATION. 


a). Various Reasons Assigned to Prove Myron’s Authorship. 


The reason that Myron has not been proposed as a source for | 
the account of the restoration seems to be the words of Pausanias 
in ὁ. 6, which apparently limit Myron’s history to the first war: 
συνεχῶς μὲν δὴ Ta πάντα ἐξ ἀρχῆς és τοῦ πολέμου τὴν τελευτὴν 


οὐδετέρῳ διήνυσται, μέρος δὲ ᾧ ἑκάτερος ἠρέσκετο, ὁ μὲν τῆς τε 
᾿Αμφείας τὴν ἅλωσιν καὶ τὰ ἐφεξῆς συνέθηκεν, οὐ πρόσω τῆς 
᾿Αριστοδήμου τελευτῆς, 'Ῥιανὸς δὲ τοῦδε μὲν τοῦ πρώτου τῶν πολέ- 
μων οὐδὲ ἥψατο ἀρχήν, ὁπόσα δὲ χρόνῳ συνέβη τοῖς Μεσσηνίοις 
ἀποστᾶσιν ἀπὸ Λακεδαιμονίων, ὁ δὲ καὶ ταῦτα μὲν οὐ τὰ πάντα 
ἔγραψε, τῆς μάχης δὲ τὰ ὕστερα ἣν ἐμαχέσαντο ἐπὶ τῇ Τάφρῳ τῇ 
καλουμένη μεγάλῃ. But we must take into account that Pausa- 
nias had to decide whether to follow Myron’s history, which 
embraced in its story of one great war nearly all the early tradi- 
tion, including the tales about Aristomenes, or to tell of two wars 
and relegate Aristomenes and some other matter that Myron’s 
history contained to the account of the second war. The words 
συνεχῶς---διήνυσται quoted above show us that Pausanias had in 
mind only what pertained to these first two wars. This exclusive 
reference to those wars, therefore, does not signify a denial on the 
part of Pausanias that Myron had also written of other portions of 
Messenian history. We have seen above that these words are not 
to be taken literally, as Myron had written likewise of the causes 
that led up to the wars and had told of the capture of Ithome. 


The Messeniaca of Pausanias. 55 


This granted, the likelihood of Myron having written also of the 
restoration of the Messenians becomes at once very strong, for his 
e people, and the strong s 
displays for the Messenians would earths ea 
they were finally restored to their rights, and how their 
—oo the Spartans, received the punishment which was 
The exclusive mention of the Messenians in the account of the 
restoration seems to reflect the devotion of Myron to the cause of 
these people. Thus we learn from various sources that E ami 
nondas did not colonize the new city Messene with ora 
alone, but also with others (cf. Diod., XV, 66, and Isocrates 
Archid., 28); yet in Pausanias we read only of the restoration f 
the Messenians, and the vision that appears to Epaminondas ; 
26, 6, says : σὺ δὲ Μεσσηνίοις γῆν τε πατρίδα καὶ πόλεις ὀνόδν. 
Likewise in the short sketch of the third war only Messenians με 
my to take part, which is contrary to Thucydides and Ephorus 
? νὴ 
i ae of Helots and others (see c. VIII, a; ef. Busolt, IT, 
The poetical elements in cc, 26 and 27, which consist chiefly of 
dreams and apparitions, were cited by Kohlmann to show their 
relationship to the poem of Rhianus ; but, although Pausanias tells 
us (c. 6) that Myron wrote his history in prose, there is no doubt 
as to the poetical character of his narrative, which was probabl 
due, to a large extent, to the sources which he used. L Spen i 
(Abhandlungen d. Miinchener Akad. Classe, I, Bd. X) aia “Mon 
méchte auch den Myron gleich Rhianus fir einen Dichter halten 
dieselbe beabsichtigte Concinnitat, bis ins Tragische gestaltet ” 
and when Kohlmann (op. cit., 24) puts this aside with the words 
Quod ua recte 8686 non habere manifestum est, he did so probabl | 
with the thought that, what Spengel considered poetical eink 
were but rhetorical embellishments. Yet rhetorical style alone 
could not account for the character of Myron’s narrative, and 
Manso, Sparta, I, p. 268, 564.) 18 possibly right in attributing the 
poetical elements in the Messeniaca to epic lays, although it seems 
far more probable that Myron and Rhianus should have used them 


as sources than that Pausanias should have constru ‘2 hi 
: t 
with their h elp. cted his history 





54 A Study in the Sources of 


cal period of the Messenian history, and at the same time with the 
restoration, thus reaching far beyond the limits of Rhianus’ epic. 

On the other hand, we know that Myron had included the deeds 
of Aristomenes in his history, and that Ithome was the place where 
the Messenians resisted the attacks of the Spartans in the first war ; 
and it would, therefore, have been easy and natural, according to 
Myron’s account, for Aristomenes to bury the roll of tin there. But 
if the passage under discussion was included in Myron’s history, it 
furnishes a clear proof that Myron had also written of the restoration. 


VII Mvyron’s History Propasity INCLUDED AN ACCOUNT 
OF THE RESTORATION. 


a). Various Reasons Assigned to Prove Myron’s Authorship. 


The reason that Myron has not been proposed as a source for | 
the account of the restoration seems to be the words of Pausanias - 
in 6. 6, which apparently limit Myron’s history to the first war: 
συνεχῶς μὲν δὴ τὰ πάντα ἐξ ἀρχῆς és τοῦ πολέμου τὴν τελευτὴν 
οὐδετέρῳ διήνυσται, μέρος δὲ ᾧ ἑκάτερος ἠρέσκετο, ὁ μὲν τῆς τε 
᾿Αμφείας τὴν ἅλωσιν καὶ τὰ ἐφεξῆς συνέθηκεν, οὐ πρόσω τῆς 
᾿Αριστοδήμου τελευτῆς, Ῥιανὸς δὲ τοῦδε μὲν τοῦ πρώτου τῶν πολέ- 
μων οὐδὲ ἥψατο ἀρχήν, ὁπόσα δὲ χρόνῳ συνέβη τοῖς Μεσσηνίοις 
ἀποστᾶσιν ἀπὸ Λακεδαιμονίων, ὁ δὲ καὶ ταῦτα μὲν οὐ τὰ πάντα 
ἔγραψε, τῆς μάχης δὲ τὰ ὕστερα ἣν ἐμαχέσαντο ἐπὶ τῇ Τάφρῳ τῇ 
καλουμένῃ μεγάλῃ. But we must take into account that Pausa- 
nias had to decide whether to follow Myron’s history, which 
embraced in its story of one great war nearly all the early tradi- 
tion, including the tales about Aristomenes, or to tell of two wars 
and relegate Aristomenes and some other matter that Myron’s 
history contained to the account of the second war. The words 
συνεχῶς---διήνυσται quoted above show us that Pausanias had in 
mind only what pertained to these first two wars. This exclusive 
reference to those wars, therefore, does not signify a denial on the 
part of Pausanias that Myron had also written of other portions of 
Messenian history. We have seen above that these words are not 
to be taken literally, as Myron had written likewise of the causes 
that led up to the wars and had told of the capture of Ithome. 


The Messeniaca of Pausanias. 


once very strong, for his 


people, and the strong sympathy whi 
displays for the Messenians would naturally Riis him sno 


iter were — restored to their rights, and how their 
enemies, the S 
pars » the Spartans, received the punishment which was 
ev exclusive mention of the Messenians in the account of the 
es oration seems to reflect the devotion of Myron to the cause of 
ss iat eg Thus we learn from various sources that Epami 
as did not colonize the new cit 
y Messene with Messeni 
0 also with others (ef. Diod., XV, 66, and Sree 
a ἐν δ 28); yet in Pausanias we read only of the restoration of 
4 ἕ essenians, and the vision that appears to Epaminondas, ¢ 
; = : σὺ δὲ Μεσσηνίοις γῆν τε πατρίδα καὶ πόλεις hatin: 
= ise in the short sketch of the third war only Messenians we 
to Bi ane which is contrary to Thucydides and Ephorus 
who speak of Helots and 
hey ga and others (see c. VIII, a; ef. Busolt, IT, 
Picts: poetical elements in ce, 26 and 27, which consist chiefly of 
= “ἘΝ — were cited by Kohlmann to show their 
eiationship to the poem of Rhianus: but 
ι 5; although Pausani ]] 
us (ὁ. 6) that Myron wrote his history j Ἶ ae 
ory in prose, there is no doubt 
: to the poetical character of his narrative, which was probabl 
we to a large extent, to the sources which he used. L, Spen ἃ 
( : oe d. Miinchener Akad. Classe, I, Bd. X) said : “Man 
pee ghee Myron gleich Rhianus fir einen Dichter halten 
setbe beabsichtigte Concinnitit, bis ins Traci 
i gische gestaltet ;” 
pio Kohlmann (op. cit., 24) puts this aside with the words: 
be — a3 habere manifestum est, he did so probably 
€ thought that, what Spengel considered 
' oetical touch 
gene but rhetorical embellishments. Yet ideas style dee 
= ee account for the character of Myron’s narrative, and 
: ai pani ae oe is possibly right in attributing the 
ements in the Messeniaca to epic la 
ys, although it see 
far more probable that Myron and Rhianus should have used seis 


as sources than that Pausanias should h “ht 
with their help. nave constructed his history 





56 A Study in the Sources of 


Myron often lets the Messenians and Lacedaemonians fight in 
heroic style outside of the line of battle (cf. cc. 8,4; 10,2). The 
passage where Theopompus rushes forward to kill Euphaes, and 
Euphaes likens his adversary to Polynices (c. 8, 8), is regarded 
by Kohlmann as rhetorical, yet it may be due to a poetical source, 
as Manso thought (Sparta, I, p. 268). Conat (Poesie Alez., p. 352) 
compares the story (c. 18,4) in the Rhianus part, where Aristo- 
menes is struck senseless by a stone and so falls into the hands of 
the Spartans, with Iliad, XIV, 409, ff., where Ajax strikes Hector 
with a stone, and as the Achaeans rush forward to get possession 
of the body of the fallen hero, is defended by the Trojans, who 
rescue him from the fight. A parallel, which is perhaps better, 
may be found in c. 10, 3, where Euphaes falls senseless in the thick 
of the fight, although not struck by a stone; but here, just as in 
the case of Hector, his friends rush to his rescue and succeed in 
bearing him off. There can be no doubt, then, of the poetical 
character of Myron’s history. 

We need, however, not be satisfied with a general correspondence 
in poetic style, but can find a closer relationship between the dreams 
related in the account of the restoration and Myron’s history. Thus 
the vision of Comon’s mother (c. 26) was a sign of the coming 
restoration, and so resembles the vision that Aristomenes had in 
the first war (c. 13, 2), which was a sign of the coming destruction. 
This correspondence is strengthened by the peculiar hideousness of 
these two dreams. On the other hand, the visions that are said to 
have occurred in the second war pertain neither to the destruction 
to be visited upon Messenia nor to the restoration. Besides, it was 
shown above that chapters 14-17 were derived, to a large extent, 
from Myron; so, possibly, the vision of the Dioscuri at the battle 
of Stenyclarus was taken from his history. The vision of Caucon, 
which appears to Epaminondas and Hpiteles, is clearly connected 
with the earliest mythological period, as well as with the period 
of the wars, and, as shown (c. VI, δ), probably belongs to Myron’s 
history. In c. 26, 3 we are told that the priest in Messene, the 
colony in Sicily, had a dream in which it appeared that the god 
Heracles Manticlus was invited by Zeus to partake of a feast on 
Mt. Ithome. The fact that in Myron the Messenians retreat to 
Mt. Ithome and defend themselves there makes it likely that refer- 


The Messeniaca of Pausanias. 57 


ences to Ithome and Zeus Ithomatas were due to him. The fre- 
quent references to Zeus Ithomatas in the Messeniaca strengthen 
this view, for they make it probable that the mention of him was 
not merely due to fragments of tradition, but also to the design of 
the author of the first Messenian war, in which Ithome plays such 
4 prominent role. In ὁ. 3,9 we are told that Glaucus instituted 
the worship of Zeus on the top of Mt. Ithome; in ο. 12, 7 (ef. also 
c. 12, 8-10) the oracle says the divinity gives the Messetiian land 
to those who first shall place a hundred tripods around the altar of 
Zeus Ithomatas; in c. 13, 1 Aristodemus sacrifices to him; in ὁ 
19, 3 Aristomenes offers him the sacrifice of the Hecatomphonia 
and in 20, 4 he prays to Zeus, who protects Ithome, to guard the 
deposit he had made there. These two latter passages are found in 
the Rhianus part; but 6. 20, 4 has been shown (p. 53 sqq.) to 
have belonged to Myron’s history, and c. 19, 3 deals with Aristo- 
menes, thus making it possible that Myron was a source. More- 
over, the mention of Zeus Ithomatas that is made in ο, 19, 3 is 
omitted by Polyaenus, IT, 31, 1, who speaks of the same soceitis 
as being offered by Aristomenes ; and, although Clem. Alex. (see 
p. 19) mentions Zeus Ithomatas in this connection, there is still 
some likelihood that Myron is responsible for the πιδη θοὸν of Zeus 
in the passage under discussion. 
Finally, in c. 27,6 Zeus Ithomatas heads the list of divinities to 
whom the Messenians offer sacrifices, which fact, together with the 
circumstances concerning this divinity mentioned above, show that 


he played an important role in the history of the Messenians along 
with the Dioscuri and the Great Goddesses. 


δ). The Part Played by Destiny Points to Myron. 


Further proof of the thesis that Myron had included an account 


of the restoration in his history will be found in looking into the 
fundamental plan of the M esseniaca, according to which the affairs 


of the Messenians, as well as of the Spartans, were controlled b 
destiny. ; 


Not only does the history itself reveal this plan, but the words 


in ce, 29, 13 and 6, 1 clearly refer to the same. Myron’s history 
of the first war corresponds with this conception, and Busolt, Gr. 





58 A Study in the Sources of 


Gesch., I, 135, 6, says: “ Die Messenier unterliegen nicht durch 
die Waffengewalt der Spartaner, sondern durch gittlichen Ratsch- 
luss und List.” 


6). Rhianus and Myron. 


But so did, in a measure, Rhianus’ epic, and Conat thought that 
destiny was even more fully represented in this poem than in 
Myron’s history. The matter is complicated, both by the fact that 
the work of destiny was recognized in the sources which were 
accessible to Rhianus and Myron, and by the fact that, in writing 
the history of the second war, Pausanias used some of the material 
that Myron’s history contained. But, although both accounts 
represent the Messenian defeat as decreed by fate, it is Myron’s 
history which reaches back to an earlier time, when the Messenians 
brought upon themselves the wrath of the gods, and then again 
clearly looks forward into the future to a time of retribution. 

It is true the following three passages, cc. 17,6, 20, 4, 21 , 10, in 
the account of the second war refer to a retribution, but the first 
two have been shown to have been derived from Myron (p. 36, ff, 
and p. 53, ff.), and therefore the third passage, c. 21, 10, which 
records the last words of Theoclus, becomes insignificant when 
compared with the references that are made to a retribution in 
Myron’s history. This is true even though we leave out of account 
the above named passages (cc. 17, 6 and 20, 4), and compare c. 12, 
7 with ὁ. 21,10. That the thought of retribution should occur in 
Rhianus’ poem is but another example of the fact that both 
Rhianus and Myron had access to the same or similar tradition. 
Now it is a significant fact that in the account of the restoration 
no notice is taken of the words of Theoclus (c. 21, 10), whose utter- 
ance stood nearer in point of time; but, instead, the words of the 
oracle cited in the account of the first war are quoted (cf. c. VII, 
δ, end). There are some other passages (cc. 18,7; 20,1; 21,7; 
etc.) in the account of the second war in which reference is made 
to supernatural power, but they either have nothing to do with 
destiny or have reference only to the second war. 

The following considerations show that the idea of destiny was 
worked out in Myron’s history more fully than in Rhianus’ epic : 
Whereas a succession of oracles and omens in the first war settle 


The Messeniaca of Pausanias. 59 


the fate of the Messenians; the fall of Eira, on the other hand, 
was really brought about by natural causes: the betrayal of the 
Messenian woman, the inclement weather, and the wounding of 
Aristomenes. Destiny reveals itself through oracles and omens 
(cf. Moulton, The Ancient Classical Drama, 93, sqq.); but, whereas 
we find one oracle of two lines in the account of the second war, 
there are quoted in the account of the first war four oracles, con- 
sisting respectively of five, three, seven and six lines; and what 
gives this fact more importance is that the course of events in the 
first war is guided, to a large extent, by these oracles. Again, 
there are almost no omens worth mentioning in the account of the 
second war in comparison with those that are enumerated in c. 13. 
In the poem of Rhianus there seems neither to have been a 
reference to the guilt of the Messenians, so as to explain why they 
were punished, nor were the wrong doings of the Spartans set 
forth, so as to justify the retribution. (Note that c. 17 belonged 
to Myron’s account, and that ὁ. 14 is a paraphrase of a Tyrtaean 
verse.) Accordingly the idea of retribution is only touched upon 
in Rhianus (6. 21, 10), whereas in Myron it stands in close connec- 
tion both with the earlier Messenian history and the restoration. 


If we turn our attention more particularly to Myron’s history 
we shall find that destiny played an important role there. But let 
us first examine some reasons that show us that Myron’s introduc- 
tion must have included a sketch of the earliest history of Messenia. 

This account of the earliest history shows us that the Messenians 
had a right to their land, and that this was recognized by the 
Spartans. It also shows that the population of Messenia contained 
a Spartan element, which makes intelligible the charge that the 
Spartans were making war on their own kinsmen, and so were 
guilty of sacrilege against Heracles, their common ancestor. These 
early chapters also explain the friendship which bound the Messen- 
ians to the Argives and Arcadians, for Polycarn had married 
Messene from Argos, and Cresphontes had married Merope, the 
daughter of the Arcadian Cypselus. 

Furthermore, it is noteworthy that there is no break in the line 
of succession of Messenian kings from Cresphontes, the first Dorian 





60 A Study in the Sources of 


king in Messenia, down to Euphaes, which is an indication that 
this early part is of one piece with the introduction, especially as 
the narrative appears to be closely knit together. 

The story of Aipytus, the son of Cresphontes, is told in ο. 3, 8 ; 
then follow in quick succession characterizations of the descendants 
who are his successors, viz., Glaucus, Isthmius, Dotadas, Sybotas 
and Phintas. Then we are told that in the reign of Phintas the 
first difference arose between the Messenians and Spartans. It was 
the occasion on which the Spartan king Teleclus met his death. 
The successors of Phintas were his two sons, Antiochus and An- 
drocles. During their reign the Polychares episode took place, 
which was the immediate cause of the war. Euphaes, finally, the 
son of Antiochus, was the king during whose reign the war broke 
out. Evidently there is a close connection between the recital of 
the early mythology and the story of the causes that led up to the 
Messenian wars. Seeing, then, that Myron wrote the story of the 
first war and included an account of the causes that led to it, and 
that there is a close connection between the earliest history and 
the later parts, it is probable that Myron’s history included a 
sketch of the earliest Messenian history. 


Now to recur to the question of the role that destiny played 
in Myron’s history: there is no doubt that Myron recognized 
that the Messenians had incurred the wrath of the gods, for 
in c, 12, 1 this oracle is quoted: ἀλλ᾽ ἀπάτῃ μὲν ἔχει γαῖαν 
Μεσσηνίδα λαός, ταῖς δ᾽ αὐταῖς τέχναισιν ἁλώσεται αἷσπερ 
ὑπῆρξεν, which clearly points to the fraudulent manner in which 
Cresphontes had obtained Messenia, and indicates that the Messe- 
nians are going to suffer for it. It is also more than probable that 
the story which relates how Cresphontes had Messenia allotted to 
himself, which is related in c. 8, 4-5, must have been told by 
Myron, because otherwise neither the above reference to it nor the 
allusion in the enumeration of the charges made by the Messenians 
against the Spartans (c. 5, 1) would be intelligible. Myron’s his- 
tory, then, not only took cognizance of Cresphontes’ fraud in the 
oracle quoted (c. 12, 1), but made this episode a distinct feature of 
his history, by which the origin of the guilt that rested on the 


The Messeniaca of Pausanias, 61 


Messenian people was explained. That some guilt rested on the 
Messenians is referred to by Manilius, Astron., III, 14: Non 
annosa canam Messenae bella NOCENTIS. 

The fraud of Cresphontes was sufficient cause, according to the 
oracle (6. 12, 1), to turn the force of destiny against the Messe- 
nians ; but the wrath of the Dioscuri , in a certain sense the national 
divinities of the Lacedaemonians, whom, however, the Messenians 
also claimed as their own (Paus., ITT, 26, 3, and e. 31, 9), must be 
accounted for. 

The role that the Dioscuri play and their connection with parts 
which have been shown above to have probably belonged to 
Myron’s history, makes it likely that Myron’s history had dealt 
with them also. 

Their wrath is spoken of in ο. 26, 6, where Caucon appears to 
Epaminondas in a dream and says: ov δὲ Μεσσηνίοις γῆν τε 
πατρίδα καὶ πόλεις ἀπόδος, ἐπειδὴ καὶ τὸ μήνιμα ἤδη σφίσι 
πέπαυται τὸ Διοσκούρων. Pausanias tells, in c. 27, what he 
thought had been the reason of the displeasure of the Dioscuri— 
an event which happened before the battle of Stenyclarus. It was 
the exploit of two youths from Andania, Panormus and Gonippus, 
who, dressing so as to represent the two Dioscuri, come upon the 
Lacedaemonians while celebrating a feast, and, being welcomed by 
the people as the twin gods, succeed in killing a large number of 
them. Kohlmann thought Pausanias had taken this story from 
an earlier part of Rhianus’ poem. But Rhianus described the 
siege of Eira, and this happened before that; and it was shown 
above that, although certain features in cc. 14-17 were taken from 
Rhianus, the bulk of the material was drawn from Myron. Be- 
sides, this exploit is told of two young Messenians called Panormus 
and Gonippus, and not of _Aristomenes, as we should expect of 
Rhianus, which fact becomes all the more significant when we see 
that Polyaenus, II, 31, 31, who tells the same story, lets Aristo- 
menes and a companion perform the deed. Again, Pausanias’ 
conjecture, which lets the deed occur in the second war, does not 
explain the importance of the wrath of the Dioscuri which the 
words of Caucon indicate. According to Pausanias their wrath is 
only an incident of the second war, whereas Caucon’s words to 
Epaminondas, “Give back to the Messenians their land, as the 








62 A Study in the Sources of 


wrath of the Dioscuri has ceased,” seem to imply that the misfor- 
tunes of the Messenians were largely due to the anger of these 
divinities. 

The fact that they are not spoken of in the first war, but in the 
second, is because they are mentioned in connection with tales 
about Aristomenes which we know were eliminated from the 
account of the first war by Pausanias. In c. 16, 9 Aristomenes is 
turned aside from a night attack on Sparta by a vision of Helen 
and the Dioscuri, and in ὁ. 16, 5 the twin gods are represented as 
sitting on a fig tree during the battle of Stenyclarus, and when 
Aristomenes tries to pass this against the warning of the priest 
Theoclus, he loses his shield, and so the Lacedaemonians are able 
to escape. It has been shown that Myron was the main source for 
this part, and, as Myron had included Aristomenes in his account, 
these stories were probably taken from him. The name of the 
priest would, of course, have to be changed to Theoclus. More- 
over, it must be observed that Aristomenes goes to Boeotia in 
order to get his shield back. This would have caused a long 
absence on his part; but, as everything seemed to depend on him 
in the second war, such an absence, before the Messenians had 
sought refuge in Eira, would have been fraught with danger to 
the Messenians, whereas in the first war there were other heroes 
besides Aristomenes to lead their forces to victory. 

But, even if we suppose these events to have taken place during 
the first war, there is still lacking an explanation of the original 
cause of the wrath of the Dioscuri. That such a cause must have 
been at the root of the Messenian troubles was indicated, as already 
said, by the words of Caucon, and is further substantiated by the 
statement in c. 26, 6, that the Messenians refused to rebuild either 
Andania or Oichalia, because, as they said, their troubles had come 
to them while living there. These events must have occurred long 
before the time of Cresphontes, who made Stenyclarus his residence 
after the return of the Heraclidae. But before the Trojan war the 
kings had inhabited successively Andania, Arene and Pylus, and, 
as the successive changes of the residence of the kings are carefully 
noted, so Andania, which was the place where the kings resided 
from the earliest period down to the time of Aphareus, the father 
of Idas and Lynceus, was synonymous with the earliest period of 


The Messeniaca of Pausanias. 63 


Messenian history. There seems to be good reason, then, to con- 
sider the combat of Idas and Lynceus (c. 3, 1) with the Dioscuri 
as the calamity referred to in c. 26,6. It is true Arene was the 
residence of the king at this time, but the reference is approximate. 
This contest, in which the sons of Aphareus were killed, seems to 
be.typical of the overthrow of the Messenian power by the Spar- 
tans (cf. Preller, Gr. Myth., I, 95), and was well adapted to head 
the story of the calamities that came upon the Messenians. 


Bearing in mind this affront to the Dioscuri, and the subsequent 
fraud of Cresphontes, we can understand the decree of fate that the 
Messenians were to be driven from their land. We see in the 
account of the first war how vain was the gallant defence of the 
Messenians and how fruitless the heroic efforts of Aristodemus, 
who, in trying to obey the oracle, even sacrificed his own daughter. 
Seemingly a contest with a rival nation, it was really a battle with 
destiny. We are made to feel the gloom of an adverse destiny, 
which had settled on the Messenians in the first war, in touches 
like the following : . 

Euphaes said, when he saw Theopompus, the Spartan leader, 
advancing, that the case of the latter was like that of his ancestor 
Polynices ; for Polynices had brought an army from Argos against 
his country, and had killed his brother with his own hand and had 
been killed in turn, and now Theopompus desired to bring upon 
the race of Heracles the same guilt as rested on the descendants of 
Laius and Oedipus. Again, when Aristodemus had rather mur- 
dered than sacrificed his daughter, the priests refused to look upon 
the death of the latter as the sacrifice which the oracle demanded, 
and subsequently opposed, though in vain, the election of Aris- 
todemus as king, since he was polluted by the murder of his 
daughter. One adverse oracle after the other disheartened the 
people, and when a series of evil omens finally threw Aristodemus 
into despair, he slew himself on the grave of his daughter. He 
had thought that he was to be the saviour of the Messenians, but 
τύχη had rendered all his plans and deeds fruitless (c. 13, 4).’ 


‘The idea that the Lacedaemonians conquered by τύχη, and not through their 
own prowess, is mentioned again in c. 25, 5. 


π᾿... ὦν. Ὡὕνο.ςςὦ . ὕ = 


ee 9S ee 








64 A Study in the Sources of 


In this manner the Lacedaemonians triumphed over the Messe- 
nians. But, at the same time that the oracle at Delphi was sending 
answers that showed that destiny was in favor of the Spartans, it 
intimated a future overthrow of the Lacedaemonian power. It is 
interesting to observe that the specific charge that is brought against 
the Messenians is deceit (c. 12, 1). 


“.ἅ» / 
ἀλλ᾽ ἀπάτῃ μὲν ἔχει γαῖαν Μεσσηνίδα λαός, 
a + A A 
ταῖς δ᾽ αὐταῖς τέχναισιν ἁλώσεται αἷσπερ ὑπῆρξεν. 


But in this very oracle in which reference is made to Messenian 
deceit (i. e., Cresphontes’ fraud) as the ground of their downfall, it 
points to the deceit of the Spartans, by which they are going to 
conquer. This is referred to again in c. 12,4, where the Messe- 
nians are warned against Spartan wiles. But, by the employment 
of the means of deceit, the Spartans seem to bring guilt upon them- 
selves. At least, the oracle is reminded of such acts of the Spartans 
as the night attack upon Ampheia, before war had been proclaimed, 
or their bribing of Aristocrates to betray the Messenians. So we 
are informed, in ὁ. 12,7, by an oracle which, though it is seemingly 
intended for the Messenians, is really addressed to the Spartans, 


\ ῇ 
Ζεὺς γὰρ ἔνευσ᾽ οὕτως " ἀπάτη δέ σε τρόσθε τίθησιν, 
e 9? / /, > / \ > \ 3 a“ 
ἡ δ᾽ ὀπίσω τίσις ἐστί, καὶ οὐ θεὸν ἐξαπατῴης. 
>] ἈΝ ’ 5 ὟΝ \ 
ἕρδ᾽ ὅππῃ τὸ χρεών * ἄτη δ᾽ ἄλλοισι πρὸ ἄλλων. 


“‘ Deceit now places the Spartans ahead ; but their punishment 
will follow.” It is to this oracle that reference is made in the 
account of the restoration, c. 26,4: "Eyéverd τε οὐ μετὰ πολὺ ἐν 
Λεύκτροις Λακεδαιμονίων τὸ ἀτύχημα ὀφειλόμενον ἐκ παλαιοῦ " 
᾿Αριστοδήμῳ γὰρ τῷ βασιλεύσαντι Μεσσηνίων ἐπὶ τελευτῇ τοῦ 
δοθέντος ἐστίν. 

ἕρδ᾽ ὅππῃ τὸ χρεών " ἄτη δ᾿ ἄλλοισι πρὸ ἄλλων. 

Myron’s history makes the future punishment of the Spartans 
appear deserved ; for, not to speak of the many acts of injustice 
against other nations which are charged against the Lacedaemonians 
in 6. 5, they are represented in this instance as waging an unjust 
war, and that against their own kinsmen, and, though the Mes- 
senians had been willing to leave their dispute to arbitration, the 


The Messeniaca of Pausanias. 65 


Spartans rejected all overtures to peace, and without even giving 
warning, fell upon Ampheia and captured it in a night attack. 
They are charged by the Messenians with having provoked the 
war, and that through greed, as they desired the Messenian land. 
Euphaes consoles the Messenians with the words (c. 6,6): καὶ τὸ 
εὐμενέστερον ἔσεσθαι παρὰ τῶν θεῶν ἀμύνουσι τῇ οἰκείᾳ καὶ οὐκ 
ἀδικίας ἄρχουσι. The last words bring to mind Medea’s words 
(Eurip. Medea, 165): of γ᾽ ἐμὲ πρόσθεν τολμῶσ᾽ ἀδικεῖν, which 
recognize the wrong of those who are first in doing injury. 

It must be evident that Myron’s history would have been in- 
complete without an account of the manner in which, in later 
years, retribution had been meted out to the Spartans, and of the 
way in which the Messenians had been restored to their country. 

I have nearly come to the close of my argument. There remains 
only to be added an investigation of the sketch of the third Messe- 
nian war, of chapter 25, and of a few points in chapter 26. 


VITI. 
a). The Third Messenian War. 


It is generally supposed that Pausanias got his account of the 
third Messenian war from Thucydides. Unger, Philol., 41 , 119, 
says: “ Pausanias, welcher die zwei ersten messenischen Kriege 
so ausfiihrlich erzihlt, weiss von dem letzten auffallend wenig zu 
berichten: was er angibt, . . . ist zum grossten Theil, oft wértlich, 
aus Thuc., I, 101, 102 und 128 entlehnt. Weder die Dauer des 
Kriegs und das Datum seiner Beendigung noch den Verlauf des- 
selben weiss er anzugeben.” Likewise, Busolt says, Gr. Gesch., IT, 
439,1: “Der Bericht bei Paus., IV, 24, 5, und I, 29, 8 geht, 
abgesehen von der Zeitangabe, der Hauptsache nach auf Thuc., I, 
128 und I, 101 zuriick.” 

We find in Pausanias three paragraphs devoted to the third war, 
which is, as Unger remarks, exceedingly little when we contrast 
therewith the detailed accounts about the first and second war. We 
might seek in this a confirmation of the view expressed above (p. 
30), that it was Pausanias’ aim to avoid telling over again what 
had been already told by some well known writer. But this ex- 
planation is not satisfactory, if we believe, with the above named 





66 A Study in the Sources of 


authorities, that Pausanias constructed his account from different 
sources. His date he got from some Althis, according to Unger, 
and possibly his confounding the date of the outbreak of the Helot 
revolt with that of Cimon’s expedition is to be traced to the same 
source, according to Busolt, Gr. Gesch., II, 454, n. And of the 
remainder of these three paragraphs it is only affirmed that most 
of it, not all, was taken from Thucydides, and even here Thuc., I, 
128 had to be combined with Thuc., I, 101, sqq. We should have 
to admit, then, that Pausanias was not bent on condensing, but on 
constructing independently an account of the third war, which view 
does not harmonize with the meagre account that confronts us, 
many things having been omitted that might very well have been 
taken from Thucydides. 

Busolt connects Paus., c. 24, 5 with I, 29, 8, and thinks that 
both passages have been taken from Thucydides; but on compari- 
son we see a marked difference. In I, 29, 8 Helots alone are 
mentioned as revolting, whereas in c. 24, 6 it is that part of the 
Helots which had been Messenians (cf. c. 24,6; III, 11,8). That 
the sources for books I and IV should have been different is quite 
natural, as book I was written much earlier, and had even been 
published separately (cf. Gurlitt, op. cit., 3). Now Paus., ο. 24, 5 
cannot be from Thucydides, for Pausanias, as we have seen, says that 
only the Messenian portion of the Helots revolted ; but Thucydides, 
Gr. Gesch., 1,101, says: of Εἵλωτες αὐτοῖς καὶ τῶν περιοίκων Θου- 
ριᾶται τε καὶ Αἰθαιῆς ἐς ᾿Ιθώμην ἀπέστησαν. πλεῖστοι δὲ τῶν 
Εἱλώτων ἐγένοντο οἱ τῶν παλαιῶν Μεσσηνίων τότε δουλωθέντων 
ἀπόγονοι " ἣ καὶ Μεσσήνιοι ἐκλήθησαν οἱ πάντες. Thucydides is 
quite explicit about the matter, and, as Pausanias is equally explicit 
in ITI, 11, 8, I cannot think that he owes this part to Thucydides. 

A detailed comparison of the two accounts will show that Pau- 
sanias did not necessarily derive his account from Thucydides. 


The Messeniaca of Pausanias. 67 


Thucydides says the suppliants were Helots; Pausanias says 
Lacedaemonians ; on the other hand, Thucydides says Lacedae- 
monians punished them; Pausanias says the Ephors did so. We 
have seen above that Myron had granted unusual powers to the 
Ephors in the first war (p. 13). They are mentioned in cc. 4, 8, 
0,4 and 12,2. Inc. 5,4 the phrase τῶν τε ἐφόρων τὴν ἀρχήν 
occurs just as in c. 24,5. It is also worth noticing that Pausanias’ 
version is particularized, which is also the case in the following: 


Paus.: Σπαρτιάταις δὲ ἐν οὐ- Thuc.: δὲ ὃ δὴ. καὶ σφίσιν 
στὴν ἢ Χ. ὁ τ τον a 
devi λόγῳ θεμένοις τοὺς ἱκέτας | αὐτοῖς νομίζουσι τὸν μέγαν σει- 
3 / > ἴω 
ἀπήντησεν ἐκ Ἰ]οσειδῶνος μή- | σμὸν γεύεσθαι ἐν Σπάρτῃ. 
vipa. 





Not only does Pausanias put in stronger relief the connection 
between the execution of the suppliants and the earthquake, but 
also between this and the revolt. He begins by saying: ἀπέστη- 
σαν δὲ καιρὸν τοιόνδε εὑρόντες, and ends with ἐπὲὶ δὲ τῇ συμφορᾷ 
ταύτῃ (cf. Thuc., I, 101, 2). More serious is the following differ- 
ence: ‘Thucydides says nothing of the effect of the earthquake, 
whereas Pausanias says: καί, σφισιν és ἔδαφος τὴν πόλιν πᾶσαν 
κατέλαβεν ὁ θεός. This, however, has been very fully treated by 
Ephorus (ef. Diod., ΧΙ, 63 ; Plut., Cimon, XVI, 6). But Ephorus 
could not have been used as a source here, for it seems highly im- 
probable that Pausanias should have condensed a long description 
of the earthquake into a bald statement of the effect in order to in- 
sert that in matter that he had derived from another source. Be- 
sides, Ephorus spoke of Messenians and Helots as revolting (cf. 
Diod., XI, 63, 84,7; Plut., Cimon, XVI, 6; XVII, 4), which 
argues, as we have seen, against the employment of his account as 
a source, 


Pausanias continues: Aaxe- Thue., I, 102: Λακεδαιμόνιοι 


Paus.,c. 24,5: Λακεδαιμονίων 
Μ > lal > ie ͵ 
ἄνδρες ἀποθανεῖν ἐπὶ ἐγκλήματι 
ὅτῳ δὴ καταγνωσθέντες ἱκέται 

4 > / > | 

καταφεύγουσιν ἐς Ταίναρον .ἐν- 

» κ ε > \ A > ’ 
τεῦθεν δὲ ἡ ἀρχὴ τῶν ἐφόρων 
ἀπὸ τοῦ βωμοῦ σφᾶς ἀποσπά- 
σασα ἀπέκτεινε. 





Thue., I, 128: οἱ γὰρ Λακε- 
δαιμόνιοι ἀναστήσαντές ποτε ἐκ 
τοῦ ἱεροῦ τοῦ Ποσειδῶνος ἀπὸ 
Ταινάρου τῶν Εἱλώτων ἱκέτας 
> / 7 
ἀπαγαγόντες διέφθειραν. 


/ 
δαιμόνιοι δὲ ἄλλα τε μετεπέ- 


μποντο συμμαχικὰ ἐπ᾽ αὐτοὺς 
καὶ Κίμωνα τὸν Μιλτιάδου 
πρόξενόν σφισιν ὄντα καὶ ᾿Αθη- 
ναίων δύναμιν. 





δὲ, ὡς αὐτοῖς πρὸς τοὺς ἐν ᾿Ιθώ- 
3 / ¢ / Ν 

μῃ ἐμηκύνετο O πόλεμος, ἄλλους 

τε ἐπεκαλέσαντο ξυμμάχους καὶ 

᾿Αθηναίους " οἱ & ἦλθον Κίμω- 

νος στρατηγοῦντος πλήθει οὐκ 

ὀλίγῳ. 


ee ΨΨΒὄΙὄ8ὀΟΘΟΘπΎ6ΣΕΘΝγΘΝΒΒΒΒΙΝΝ 





68 A Study in the Sources of 


The phrase ἄλλα τε----καὶ is so common in Pausanias that a verbal 
correspondence need by no means to be thought of (ef. cc. 1,2; 1,7; 
1,9; 2,3; 2,5; 3,1; 3,6; 3,10; 4,5; 4,6; 4,7; 5,3; 5,4; 
5,6; 6,4; 6,6; 7,1; 7,3; 7,4; 8,2; 9,6; 10,1; 10,5; 10, 
6; 11,4; 11,8; 12,9; 12,10; etc.). Moreover, allowance must 
be made for the possibility that Thucydides was the ultimate source 
_ for Pausanias’ statements, which could come to him through Myron, 
who, as we have seen, drew from Thucydides (see also p. 12). 





The Messeniaca of Pausanias. 69 


povs τοὺς πρὸς Αἰτωλίᾳ καλου- 
μένους ᾽Οζόλας. 





δαιμονίων ἐς Ναύπακτον κατῴ- 
κισαν, ἣν ἔτυχον ἡρηκότες νεω- 
att Λοκρῶν τῶν ᾿Οζολῶν ἐχόν- 
των. 


There is no verbal correspondence noticeable here. Pausanias 


> / \ \ 

Paus.: ἀφικομένους δὲ τοὺς 

᾽ / e “ A 

Αθηναίους ὑποπτεῦσαι Soxod- 

σιν ὡς τάχα νεωτερίσοντας, καὶ 
ς \ “ e / > / 

ὑπὸ τῆς ὑποψίας ἀποπέμψα- 

% 
σθαι pet ov πολὺ ἐξ ᾿Ιθώμης. 





Thuce., I, 102: οἱ yap Λακε- 
ὃ / > \ XN / / 
αἰμόνιοι, ἐπειδὴ TO χωρίον Bia 
οὐχ ἡλίσκετο, δείσαντες τῶν 
> / \ \ \ \ 
Αθηναίων τὸ τολμηρὸν Kal τὴν 
νεωτεροποιίαν, καὶ ἀλλοφύλους 
ἅμα ἡγησάμενοι, μή τι, ἢν παρα- 
μείνωσιν, ὑπὸ τῶν ἐν ᾿Ιθώμῃ 
/ 
πεισθέντες νεωτερίσωσι, μόνους 
τῶν ξυμμάχων ἀπέπεμψαν, 
i T. Ἃς 


continues: τοῖς δὲ Μεσσηνίοις παρέσχεν ἀπελθεῖν ἐξ ᾿Ιθώμης τοῦ 
τε χωρίου τὸ ἐχυρόν. ‘This is not in Thucydides; but in Paus., 
6. 9,3, we read: ἦν δὲ τὸ χωρίον Kal ἄλλως ἐχυρόν * ἡ yap ᾿Ιθώμη 
a n fal ε / / Ὁ 
μεγέθει τε οὐδενὸς ἀποδεῖ τῶν ὀρῶν ὁπόσα ἐντός ἐστιν Ἰσθμοῦ, καὶ 


/ \ n ΄, > 
δύσβατος κατὰ τοῦτο μάλιστα Hv. 


Paus.: καὶ ἅμα Λακεδαιμονί- 

ἴω ΄ ’ 9 4 
ous προεῖπεν ἡ Πυθία ἢ μὴν 
Ἂν , / n 
εἶναί σφισι δίκην ἁμαρτοῦσιν 
> fa) \ ~ γ / Ἃ 
ἐς τοῦ Διὸς τοῦ ᾿Ιθωμάτα τὸν 
δὺς Ψ e / \ > 
ἱκέτην. ὑπόσπονδοι μὲν ἐκ 11ε- 

/ 4 “ > 4 
λοποννήσου τούτων ἕνεκα ἀφεί- 
θησαν. 





Thuc., I, 108, 2: ἣν δέ τι 
καὶ χρηστήριον τοῖς Λακεδαι- 
μονίοις Πυθικὸν πρὸ τοῦ, τὸν 
ἱκέτην τοῦ Διὸς τοῦ ᾿Ιθωμήτα 
ἀφιέναι. 


Here the word νεωτερίσοντας seems to come from νεωτεροποιίαν 
and νεωτερίσωσι. But this could very well have been preserved 
in the source which Pausanias used, just as we find it in Plut., 


Cimon, 17,4: ἀπεπέμψαντο μόνους τῶν συμμάχων ὡς νεωτερι- 
στάς, which is still closer to the form of expression used by 


Thucydides. 


Paus.: ᾿Αθηναῖοι δὲ τὴν és 
> \ “Ὁ ’ ς / 
αὐτοὺς τῶν Λακεδαιμονίων ὑπό- 

/ ᾿] ’ ’ 
νοίαν συνέντες Αργείοις τε φί- 
λοι δι᾽ αὐτὸ ἐγένοντο. 


Paus.: καὶ Μεσσηνίων τοῖς 
3 b ] , / > 
ἐν ᾿Ιθώμῃ πολιορκουμένοις ἐκ- 
πεσοῦσιν ὑποσπόνδοις ἔδοσαν 
/ 
Ναύπακτον, ἀφελόμενοι Aox- 





Thucy., I, 102,4 : οἱ δ᾽ ’A@n- 

“A YG > > \ A / 
vaio. ἔγνωσαν οὐκ ἐπὶ TO βελτί- 
᾽ / 3 ral 

ove λόγῳ ἀποπεμπόμενοι, ἀλλά 

/ 

τινος ὑπόπτου γενομένου, Kal 
δεινὸν ποιησάμενοι... . ᾿Αργεί- 
ous τοῖς ἐκείνων πολεμίοις ξύ- 


μμαχοι ἐγένοντο. 

Thucy., I, 103, 8: ἐξῆλθον 
δὲ αὐτοὶ καὶ παῖδες καὶ yuvai- 
κες, καὶ αὐτοὺς ᾿Αθηναῖοι δεξά- 

> v \ 
μενοι κατ᾽ ἔχθος ἤδη τὸ Aake- 


Thucydides simply mentions the fact that there had been an 
oracle commanding the Lacedaemonians to release the suppliant 
of Zeus Ithomatas. Pausanias says Pythia told them that punish- 
ment was due them for having sinned against the suppliant of 
Zeus Ithomatas. Here is evidently a reference to the first Messe- 
nian war. 

The above discussion, I think, makes it plausible that Pausa- 
nias did not obtain his sketch of the third war from Thucydides, 
but from some other source, probably Myron. 


δ). Chapter XXV. 


To show that the following chapter (25) was taken from Myron 
I shall first demonstrate its unreality. The third Messenian war 
ended 462-1 B.C. (Busolt, Gr. Gesch., II, 475), after which the 
Athenians settled the Messenians in Naupactus (Thuc., I, 103, 8), 
and they were known thereafter as Μεσσήνιοι οἱ ἐν Ναυπάκτῳ 
(Thuc., 11, 9, 4). These Messenians, according to Pausanias, 
wishing to distinguish themselves, made an expedition against the 

5 





70 A Study in the Sources of 


town Oeniadae. This town was so well fortified and so isolated 
from the rest of Acarnania that it stood nearly always in a hostile 
relation towards the rest of Acarnania (Bursian, I, 122), and so we 
find it on the side of the Lacedaemonians, although the rest of 
Acarnania was friendly to the Athenians (Thuc., IT, 82). 

Pericles made an unsuccessful attack upon it in 454 B.C. (Thuc., 
I, 111, 2), and in 429 B.C. the Athenians, under Phormion, to- 
gether with four hundred Messenians, made an expedition into 
Acarnania, but did not attack Oeniadae for the reason that, being 
winter, its situation made it impossible to do so (Thuc., II, 102). 
In the following year Asopus, the son of Phormion, made an 
attack on Oeniadae in the summer, hoping thus to succeed where 
his father had failed (Thuc., ITI, 7, 4-5). But, though he made 
his attack by land and sea, he was also unsuccessful. Finally, in 
the year 424 B.C., the Acarnanians force the Oeniadans to join 
the Athenian alliance (Thuc., IV, 77). 

Now we read in Pausanias that the Messenians captured this 
town, held it for a year, and were then driven out by the Acarna- 
nians. ‘This account fairly bristles with impossibilities and im- 
probabilities. They must have taken it between 462 and 424 B.C. 
During this time the Athenians were fully alive to its importance, 
and, as we have seen, tried hard to get possession of it. Yet after 
the Messenians had captured it, without assistance and without 
ships, they are allowed to remain there a year without any atten- 
tion being paid them, not even by the inhabitants of Naupactus ; 
and, what is just as strange, the Messenians themselves do not 
herald their success. At the end of this time the Acarnanians, 
who are friendly to the Athenians, seem to ignore the fact that the 
Messenians are allies, attack them, and after eight months the 
Oeniadans are brought into such straits that they make a sally, 
and so succeed in fighting their way back to Naupactus. 

I think this account is an invention of Myron, who wrote it to 
fill out the period of exile. A careful historian could have found 
other material in Thucydides which would have served the same 
purpose. But, as the author of c. 25 evidently desired to glorify 
the Messenians, he preferred to draw on his imagination. 

A detailed examination will give support to this hypothesis. 
Pausanias, c. 25,1, says: “Emel δὲ ἔσχον τὴν Ναύπακτον, οὐκ 


The Messeniaca of Pausanias. 71 


ἀπέχρη πόλιν τε αὐτοῖς καὶ χώραν εἰληφέναι παρ᾽ ᾿Αθηναίων, ἀλλὰ 
σφᾶς πόθος εἶχεν ἰσχυρὸς χερσὶ ταῖς αὑτῶν φανῆναι λόγου τι 
κεκτημένους ἄξιον. It seems that immediately on occupying Nau- 
pactus they are bent on doing something great. So in the follow- 
ing sentence, c. 25,1: ὄντες δὲ ἀριθμῷ μὲν οὐ πλείους, ἀρετῇ δὲ 
καὶ πολὺ ἀμείνονες ὄντες τῇ σφετέρᾳ νικῶσι, καὶ ἐπολιόρκουν 
κατακεκλειμένους ἐς τὸ τεῖχος, K.T.X. Compare with this ὁ. 11 4: 
ἀριθμῷ μὲν δὴ τῶν ἐναντίων ἀπελείποντο, λογάδες δὲ ὄντες ἐμά- 
χοντοὸ πρὸς δῆμον καὶ οὐχ ὁμοίως πρὸς κρείττους, κιτ.λ. We 
must be surprised to see such prowess in a conquered race. It is 
plain that what is said of the occupation of the town is pure fiction. 
Paus., c. 25,3: καὶ ἐνιαυτὸν μὲν μάλιστα of Μεσσήνιοι κατέσχον 
τὴν πόλιν καὶ ἐνέμοντο τὴν χώραν. They took no pains to make 
known their remarkable success. Paus., ο. 25,3: τῷ δὲ ἔτει τῷ 
ὑστέρῳ δύναμιν οἱ ᾿Ακαρνᾶνες ἀπὸ πασῶν συλλέξαντες τῶν πό- 
λεων ἐβουλεύοντο ἐπὶ τὴν Ναύπακτον στρατεύειν. But both 
parties were allied with the Athenians! The phrase οἱ ’Axapvaves 
ἀπὸ πασῶν συλλέξαντες τῶν πόλεων reminds one strongly of 
Paus., 6. 17, 2: ᾿Αρκάδων βεβοηθηκότων ἀπὸ πασῶν τῶν πόλεων, 
and c. 11,1: οἵ τε ᾿Αρκάδες πανστρατιᾷ, both of which are from 
Myron (see p. 37). The Acarnanians then change their minds 
and attack the Messenians in Oeniadae, notwithstanding the fact 
that the Messenians were friendly to the Athenians, and that it 
was these very Acarnanians who finally brought Oeniadae into the 
Athenian alliance. They did not think that the Messenians (ο. 
25, 4) ἐς τοσοῦτον ἀπονοίας ἥξειν as to resist the whole Acarnanian 
force. Here we have the thought of desperation again, which was 
so marked in the first two wars, especially in the first. Neverthe- 
less the Messenians determine to resist, and at first before the walls 
of their town, just as they fought before the walls of Ithome in the 
first war (see p. 24). Paus., 6. 25,5: μηδὲ ὄντας Μεσσηνίους, οἱ 
μηδὲ Λακεδαιμονίων ἀνδρίᾳ τύχῃ δὲ ἠλαττώθησαν, καταπεπλῆ- 
χθαι τὸν ἥκοντα ὄχλον ἐξ ’Axapvavias. It was in the first war 
especially that τύχη was opposed to the Messenians (see p. 63). 

In the battle that follows the Acarnanians try to surround the 
Messenians, but these keep the city at their backs (c. 25, 6): ai 
πύλαι TE ἀπεῖργον κατὰ νώτου τοῖς Μεσσηνίοις γινόμενοι ; in the 
same manner Ὁ. 11,2: [᾽᾿Αριστόδημος] προείδετο δὲ καὶ ὅπως 





: ἡ = A Teas - 
St νν- a Pure -> χα, eee Ἐς προ ee ἘΦ. ς Ὁ thee? τς Σ = ἧς 


asses ἢ . 


fe ΞΟΘ 





72 A Study in the Sources of 


τεταγμένοις σφίσι τὸ ὅρος ἡ ᾿Ιθώμη κατὰ νώτου γίνοιτο. The 
Messenians succeeded in holding the entire force of the Acarna- 
nians at bay till nightfall. Then, however, the Acarnanians receive 
reénforcements! They had far outnumbered the Messenians before 
this. The Messenians now hold out against a siege for eight 
months, and finally succeed in escaping, as stated above. The 
purpose of chapter 25 was evidently to describe the period of exile, 
and so lead over to the restoration. Hence it is closely connected 
with the third war, which preceded, and also with the restoration, 


which is related in the next chapter. 


6). Chapter XX VI. 


Chapter 26 begins as follows: τὸ δὲ ἀπὸ τούτου τόν τε ἄλλον 
χρόνον ἐνέκειτό σφισι τὸ ἐς Λακεδαιμονίους μῖσος, καὶ τὴν ἔχθραν 
ἐς αὐτοὺς μάλιστα ἐπεδείξαντο ἐπὶ τοῦ γενομένου Πελοποννησίοις 
πρὸς ᾿Αθηναίους πολέμου " τήν τε γὰρ Ναύπακτον ὁρμητήριον ἐπὶ 
τῇ Πελοποννήσῳ παρείχοντο. The prominence given here to the 
hatred which the Messenians bore the Spartans shows, I think, 
the same spirit which has been so often noted above in ees 
history. We find it expressed again in c. 26, 5: οἱ δὲ aac ἢ 
ὡς ἄν τις ἤλπισε συνελέχθησαν γῆς Te τῆς πατρίδος πόθῳ Kai διὰ 
τὸ ἐς Λακεδαιμονίους μῖσος παραμεῖναν ἀεί σφισιν. No doubt 
this hatred for the Spartans, just as their friendship for the Arca- 
dians, was frequently spoken of (cf. Polyb., IV, 32), and so we 
find’ it mentioned again in c. 29, 3, which lies outside of Myron’s 
sphere. The remark concerning hate in c. 29, 6 is made by Pau- 
sanias himself. Nevertheless the prominence which is given to 
hatred in the passages quoted above (c. 26, 1-5) makes this 
resemble the fury which animated the contending parties in the 
first war. Very different is c. 23, 5 in the Rhianus part, where 
Manticlus tells the Messenians to forget their hatred of the 
Spartans. 

Pausanias, 6. 26,1, continues: καὶ τοὺς ἐν τῇ Σφακτηρίᾳ Σπα- 
ρτιατῶν ἀποληφθέντας Μεσσηνίων σφενδονῆται τῶν ἐκ Ναυπάκ- 
του συνεξεῖλον. The help that the Messenians afford at Sphakteria 
is told by Thucydides, IV; 36, 1, sqy.; but he speaks of archers. 
On the other hand, slingers are mentioned in the account of the 





The Messeniaca of Pausanias. 73 


first war (c. 11,3). Paus., ο. 26, 2, continues: ἐπεὶ δὲ τὸ Taig wa 
ἐγένετο τὸ ᾿Αθηναίων ἐν Αἰγὸς ποταμοῖς, οὕτω καὶ ἐκ Ναυπάκτου 
τοὺς Μεσσηνίους ἐκβάλλουσιν οἱ Λακεδαιμόνιοι ναυσὶν ἐπικρα- 
τοῦντες, οἱ ἐς Σικελίαν τε παρὰ τοῦς συγγενεῖς καὶ ἐς Ῥήγιον 
ἐστάλησαν. Rhianus had told only of the colony that went to 
Zancle at the invitation of Anaxilas. Myron’s account of the 
exiles was very much condensed, and yet we read in c. 23, 6: 
μετῴκησε δὲ ᾿Αλκιδαμίδας ἐκ Μεσσήνης ἐς Ῥήγιον μετὰ τὴν 
᾿Αριστοδήμου τοῦ βασιλέως τελευτὴν καὶ ᾿Ιθώμης τὴν ἅλωσιν, 
which shows that he had said more of exiles than Pausanias lets 
us see, 

The third place to which the Messenians now fled, according to 
Pausanias, was Africa. This account would be a puzzle, unless we 
recognize the constructive genius of Myron to have been at work. 
It seems to be a combination of what Diodorus, XIV, 34, 2, sqq., 
tells of the dispersion of the Messenians after they were driven out 
of Naupactus, and of some statements in Thucydides which have 
nothing to do with the Messenians; but this material has been 
much changed and additions made to it. Pausanias (c. 26, 2) says: 
τὸ πλεῖστον δὲ αὑτῶν ἔς τε Λιβύην ἀφίκετο καὶ Λιβύης ἐς Εὐεσπε.- 
ρίτας " οἱ yap Eveorepira: πολέμῳ κακωθέντες ὑπὸ βαρβάρων 
προσοίκων πάντα τινὰ “Ἕλληνα ἐπεκαλοῦντο σύνοικον. ἐς τούτους 
τῶν Μεσσηνίων τὸ πολὺ ἀπεχώρησεν. Diodorus, XIV, 84, 2, 
sqq., tells us that the Messenians went to different countries and 
took part in the wars there; with this the account in Pausanias 
would harmonize fairly well; also when Diodorus says: εἰς Kupn- 
νην ἔπλευσαν περὶ τρισχιλίους, which might justify the statement 
in Pausanias: τὸ πλεῖστον δὲ αὐτῶν ἔς τε Λιβύην ἀφίκετο. Yet. 
Diodorus says that they went to Cyrene, whereas Pausanias says 
to Euesperides, a town lying west of Cyrene. This discrepancy 
cannot be an accident, for the names Cyrene and Euesperitae recur 
in both accounts. 

If now we bear in mind the free manner in which Myron used 
suggestions he found in the history of Thucydides, it will be easy 
to see a close correspondence in this case. Thuc., VII, 19, 3, says: 
οἱ δ᾽ ἐν τῇ Πελοποννήσῳ ἀπέστελλον περὶ τὸν αὐτὸν χρόνον ταῖς 
ὁλκάσι τοὺς ὁπλίτας ἐς τὴν Σικελίαν, Λακεδαιμόνιοι μὲν τῶν τε 
Εἱλώτων ἐπιλεξάμενοι τοὺς βελτίστους καὶ τῶν νεοδαμωδῶν, 














74 A Study in the Sources of 


ξυναμφοτέρων és ἑξακοσίους ὁπλίτας, κι τ.λ. This expedition is 
referred to again in Thucy., VII, 50,2: τοὺς ἐκ τῆς Πελοποννή- 
σου τοῦ ἦρος ἐν ταῖς ὁλκάσιν ὁπλίτας ἀποσταλέντας, ἀφικομένους 
ἀπὸ τῆς Λιβύης ἐς Σελινοῦντα. ἀπενεχθέντες yap ἐς Λιβύην, καὶ 
δόντων Κυρηναίων τριήρεις δύο καὶ τοῦ πλοῦ ἡγεμόνας, καὶ ἐν τῷ 
‘mde Εὐεσπερί wos ὑπὸ Λιβύων ξυμμαχή- 
παράπλῳ Eveotepitats πολιορκουμένοις ὑπὸ At , 
σαντες καὶ νικήσαντες. τοὺς Λίβυς, καὶ αὐτόθεν παραπλεύσαντες 
ἐς Νέαν πόλιν, «.t.r. Although there were no Messenians in 
this expedition, yet there were Helots, and one familiar with 
Thucydides, as Myron must have been, could easily have remem- 
bered some of the circumstances, especially as the Euesperitans are 
only mentioned here. Besides, this expedition met with success in 
Africa, as in Pausanias’ account, whereas Diodorus says of the 
Messenians: οἱ δὲ Μεσσήνιοι σχεδὸν ἅπαντες ἀνῃρέθησαν, of 
which disaster there is not a hint in Pausanias. | 
Moreover, the name of the Messenian leader which domamene 
(c. 26, 2) gives must be considered; he says: és repre: τῶν 
Μεσσηνίων τὸ πολὺ ἀπεχώρησεν " ἡγεμὼν δέ σφισιν ἣν Κόμων, ὃς 
καὶ περὶ τὴν Σφακτηρίαν ἐστρατήγησε αὐτοῖς. Neither Thucy- 
dides nor anybody else knows anything about this Comon. He is 
represented as the leader who had conducted the Messenians from 
Naupactus to Africa, and now in his old age is permitted to ex- 
perience the joy of the restoration. He is also one of es eh to 
be apprised of this fact, as follows (6. 26, 3) : Ἐνιαυτῷ δὲ πρότερον 
ἢ κατορθῶσαι Θηβαίους τὰ ἐν Λεύκτροις, προσεσήμαινεν ὁ δαίμων 
Μεσσηνίοις τὴν ἐς Πελοπόννησον κάθοδον ... τοῦτο δὲ ἐν Ἐύεσπε- 
ρίταις Κόμων συγγενέσθαι νεκρᾷ τῇ μητρὶ ἐδόκει, συγγενομένου 
δέ, αὖθίς οἱ τὴν μητέρα ἀναβιῶναι (cf. this dream with that of 
Aristodemus, pp. 56, 57). καὶ ὁ μὲν ἐπήλπιξζεν ᾿Αθηναίων δυνη- 
θέντων ναυτικῷ κάθοδον ἔσεσθαί σφισιν ἐς Ναύπακτον "τὸ δὲ ἄρα 
ἐδήλου τὸ ὄνειρον ἀνασώσεσθαι Μεσσήνην. ᾿Εγένετὸ τε οὐ μετὰ 
πολὺ ἐν Λεύκτροις Λακεδαιμονίων τὸ ἀτύχημα ὀφειλόμενον ἐκ 
παλαιοῦ. Very noteworthy is the artistic feature that this gray- 
haired Messenian interprets the dream to mean only that he is to 
return to Naupactus; but the much greater happiness of being 
restored to his country is reserved to heighten his joy. Now this 
is what happens: Comon leads the Messenians back to their 
country, and they there build the walls of their city Messene. In 


The Messeniaca of Pausanias. 75 


the same manner Comon returned to Athens and rebuilt the walls 
there (Xen., Hell., [V, 8,10). Besides, in Thuc., VII, 31, 4, we 
read: ἀφικνεῖται δὲ καὶ Κόνων Tap αὐτοὺς, ὃς ἦρχε Ναυπάκτου, 
Κ. τ. λ.; that is, Comon was also a commander of Naupactus. 
What an easy change to imagine a Comon to be also a leader of 
the Naupactian Messenians, who is destined to lead them back to 
their country! We must bear in mind while examining Pausanias’ 
account of the restoration that Xenophon omitted to say anything 
about it, and we have to thank Pausanies for most of what we 
know (Grote, Gk. Hist., IX, 449). Here was, then, an excellent 
opportunity for Myron to reconstruct the history of the restoration 
of the Messenians to their country. And, as I have pointed out 
above that Comon’s restoration of the walls of Athens was sugges- 
tive to him, so I find also in the same connection in Xen., IV, 8, 
10: ὁ δὲ ἀφικόμενος πολὺ τοῦ τείχους ὥρθωσε.. καὶ τέκτοσι 
καὶ λιθολόγοις μισθὸν διδούς, καὶ ἄλλο εἴ τι ἀναγκαῖον ἣν, δαπα. 
νὧν. A similar detail is mentioned in Paus., c. 27,5: λίθους τε 
ἄγεσθαι κελεύων καὶ ἄνδρας μεταπεμπόμενος, οἷς τέχνη στενωποὺς 
κατατέμνεσθαι καὶ οἰκίας καὶ ἱερὰ οἰκοδομεῖσθαι καὶ τείχη περι- 
βάλλεσθαι. The following sentence in Pausanias, ὡς δὲ ἐγέγονει 
τὰ πάντα ἐν ἑτοίμῳ, τὸ ἐντεῦθεν... ἔθυον, intimates that Epami- 
nondas remained on the spot until all of these extensive preparations 
for building were complete. This seems very improbable, when 
we remember that Epaminondas had many other things to attend 
to during his stay in the Peloponnesus, and while there overstayed 
his time at the risk of being punished with death by the home 
authorities (Paus., [X, 14, 5). 

The importance of this restoration was well known. Pausanias, 
IX, 15, 6, mentions a statue of Epaminondas with this inscription : 
καὶ ἐλεγεῖα ἔπεστιν ἄλλα τε ἐς αὐτὸν λέγοντα, καὶ ὅτι Μεσσήνης 
γένοιτο οἰκιστὴς καὶ τοῖς Ἕλλησιν ὑπάρξειεν ἐλευθερία δὲ αὐτοῦ. 
Therefore it seemed very appropriate that the extraordinary sacri- 
fices which Pausanias (c. 27, 7) mentions should take place, and to 
further celebrate the occasion εἰργάζοντο δὲ καὶ ὑπὸ μουσικῆς 
ἄλλης μὲν οὐδαμιᾶς, αὐλῶν δὲ Βοιωτίων καὶ ᾿Αργείων. This finds 
a parallel in Xen., Hell., II, 2, 23, where Xenophon describes how 
the walls of Athens were torn down. This was also considered 
the beginning of liberty, and was also.celebrated with the music of 








76 A Study in the Sources of 


flutes: καὶ τὰ τείχη κατέσκαπτον ὑπ᾽ αὐλητρίδων πολλῇ προθυ- 
/ / > ’ \ ς , ae / 3 lal 
pia, νομίζοντες ἐκείνην THY ἡμέραν TH “Ἑλλάδι ἄρχειν τῆς ἐλευ- 


θερίας. 

I add a few words in conclusion in order to sum up the results 
that have been attained. 

The pith of the Messenian history lies in a few facts. In very 
early times the Messenian people were conquered by the Spartans, 
and, while a part of them may have gone into exile, the majority 
were reduced to the state of the Helot class. Then, after about 
300 years, Epaminondas reorganized the Messenian state, and thus 
put an everlasting check on Spartan power. 

Almost nothing is known about these events, and Pausanias’ 
account owes its origin to the brains of patriotic Messenians, who 
invented tales whose aim was to glorify the Messenian nation at 
the expense of their perennial foes, the Spartans. To weave a 
connected account out of this material required the imaginative 
brains of such men as the poet Rhianus and the rhetorician Myron. 
We have seen the limits of Rhianus’ poem. In regard to Myron, 
however, the investigation has shown, step by step, that his Messe- 
nian history must have had a wider scope than is generally 
supposed. 

I began with the generally conceded assumption that his account 
told of the capture of Ampheia and extended as far as the death 
of Aristodemus. It was shown, however, that this assumption 
narrowed the limits of Myron’s history unduly, as it was based on 
a falsé interpretation of c. 6. Others had supposed that Myron’s 
history may have had an introduction, and pointed viz. to the 
Polychares episode as coming from Myron. I showed, by an 
extended examination of the introduction, that this was so closely 
related to the account of the first war that the conclusion that it 
had been written by Myron seems inevitable. Next it was shown 
that Myron’s history had extended to the close of the first war, and 
had even related how the Messenians had been exiled. Now 
already the scope of Myron’s history appeared such that it would 
have seemed strange if Myron would have been satisfied to stop at 
the first war. But another chapter, which dealt with cc. 14-17, 
showed that Myron had not undertaken to write distinctly of the 
first war; but, as he had included the stories about Aristomenes, 


The Messeniaca of Pausunias. 77 


besides other matter which pertained to the second war, he had 
possibly had a larger aim in view, which was to tell all about the 
way in which the Messenians had been subjugated by the Spartans. 
In doing this he used all the tradition available, in order to tell of 
one great war. From this conception of Myron’s history it was 
but a step to another conclusion, namely, that Myron had also 
related how the Messenians had been restored to their country by 
Epaminondas. An examination of the account of the restoration 
has made it clear that this had actually been the case. Accord- 
ingly, we see that Myron’s history had extended from the earliest 
mythological period down to 370 B. C., which limits would natu- 


rally present themselves to one who wished, as Myron did, to 
glorify the Messenian nation. 








BIBLIOGRAPHY. 





A. BorckH. Opuscula Academica Berolinensia. Lepsiae, 1874. 

C. Burstan. Geographie von Griechenland. Leipzig, 1862. 

Busour. Griechische Geschichte. Gotha, 1885-1888. 

Busott. Zu den Quellen der Messeniaka des Pausanias. (Neue J ahrbiicher f. 
Philologie, 1883, p. 814.) 

A. Conat. Poésie Alexandrine. Paris, 1882. 

M. Duncker. Geschichte des Alterthums. VI, 106. Leipzig, 1882. 

A. ExmAnn. Die Quellen des Pompeius Trogus. Dorpat, 1880. 

Guruitr. Uber Pausanias. 1890. 

ὅποτε. History of Greece. London, 1869. 

W. Immerwaner. Die Lakonika des Pausanias. Berlin, 1889. 

Fr. Jacoss. Vermischte Schriften. 8 Βὰ Leipzig, 1844. 

A. KALKMANN. Pausanias der Perieget. Berlin, 1886. 

Pu. KoHLMANN. Quaestiones Messeniacae. Bonnae, 1866. 

MerneEkeE.- Abhandlungen. Berlin, 1832. 

Merneke. Analecta Alexandrina. 

O. MiitueR. Die Dorier. Breslau, 1844. 

C. Mituer. Fragmenta Historicorum Graecorum. Paris, 1848. 

H. Nissen. Kritische Untersuchungen iib. die Quellen der vierten ἃ. fiinften 
Decade des Livius. Berlin, 1863. 

C. WERNICKE. De Pausaniae Periegetae Studiis Herodoteis. Berolini, 1884. 














\ 


᾿65..5 


ll 


98634 


of Tausan’ 
RSITY 
| 


iil UNIVE 
00260 


I 


6D Ξ 


-- 


XS 


WSEniaca 


v Ἂ 
+ 


Me 
Ys 


ὶ -— 


3 
444 
i 


ee ee 
Eo AR LA en 


4 





-- »- 


PES ἣν : i AVA LAR Ἢ ᾿ Woy 5 er - wo ᾿ : Ἢ . : , Ἢ A τῷ . ΣΝ Fyne PUTO κι ΤΩΝ ἷ 
ΣΝ ΔῸΣ ὰ πο ΣΝ ey te WEP belies, yd bye te ωῦων MMU Pe Os ns , ὶ δ τὰς ἐλ. * SA AAS tees Soha το ττι ἔθος “ ᾿ aM, ‘ a sy! Ὁ ΧῸΝ AR 
7 ν - ε y J 7 4 bs μᾶς ate. ὧν 3 τ 4 = 7 - γ᾿ ἀν Cee Ss Be eee 


᾽ν 








ΟΝ ΔΝ ΔΝ ΕΝ AMOMAN PEAE MAE AEA PE 





